' 












k 4 















<o 



























^ 









-*. 





















^ 






* H ^ 
































- 


















■^ 


















^ 














10 



F 



\» 



iV 






C 









* ".- 



~f. 















F C> 












\ V ^ 



^ y ^ ^r 






V' 



H Xi 















^ 




^. 
















s 






























'< 










































c 


















. 












\ 
































DOCTRINAL CATECHISM; 

WHEREIN DIVERS POINTS OF - **" 

LAW 

CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE ASSAILED* 
BY MODERN HERETICS 

ARE SUSTAINED BY AN APPEAL TO THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE TESTIMONY OP THE ANCIENT 
FATHERS, AND THE DICTATES OF REASON. 

ON THE BASIS OF SCHEFFMACHER'S CATECHISM. 

BY THE 

REV. STEPHEN "kEEtfAtf. 

FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED. 

" Try all things, and hold fast that which is good."— Thess. v. 21. 



APPROVED BY THE 



RIGHT REV. JOHN HUGHES, J>^>.; r H 



BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 






X- 



NEW YORK: 
EDWARD DUNIGAN & BROTHER, 

151 FULTON-STREET. 
1848. 






ATIONS 



THE 



AL EDINBURGH EDITION. 



A Concise Summary of Arguments, Authorities, and Proofs, in 
support of the Doctrines, Institutions, and Practices of the Catho- 
lic Church, is here presented in a very convenient form, as an 
additional antidote against the unceasing effusions of antagonist 
Ignorance and Misrepresentation. The Believer will be hereby 
instructed and confirmed in his Faith, and the sincere Searcher 
after Truth will here find a lucid path opened to conduct him to its 
sanctuary. There is much important matter condensed in these 
unpretending pages. The work, I trust, will meet with the notice 
it deserves, and the good be thus effected which the zealous and 
talented a jthor has had in view in its publication. 

»J< ANDREW, Bishop of Cebamis, 
Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Scotland. 
Edinburgh, 10th April, 1846. 



I have read, with much pleasure, a Catechism, by the Rev. 
Stephen Keenan. As it contains a well-reasoned defence of the 
Catholic faith, and clear and satisfactory solutions of the usual 
objections adduced by separatists, I deem that the study of it will 
be most useful to all Catholics ; and, therefore, I earnestly recom- 
mend it to the Faithful in the Northern District of Scotland. 



»J« JAS. KYLE, V.A., N.D.S. 



Pbeshome, 15th April, 1846. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, 

Bt EDWARD DUNIGAN, 

• the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United State* for the 
Southern District of New York. 



PREFACE. 



Discussions on the various questions of religion have 
ever been^ and still are, matters of inevitable necessity, 
because Christianity and its dogmas have ever been, and 
still are, impugned by those victims of passion, prejudice, 
and error — the schismatic, heretic, and infidel. The true 
minister of Jesus Christ is thus compelled to make reli- 
gious controversy an important part of his studies, as it 
is only by this mean he can, with the help of God's grace, 
bring back these unfortunate wanderers to the fold of 
Christ. If angry feelings are sometimes engendered by 
these discussions, the fault lies with those who first 
raised the standard of rebellion against the authoritative 
teaching of the lawful pastors, whom Christ commission- 
ed to feed his lambs and his sheep, with the bread of life 
and the Word of God. To elucidate truth, is the object 
of free discussion ; and to all who are properly qualified 
for the task, ample scope should be given. Catholics, as 
regards their doctrines, court publicity ; because they are 
fully aware, the more these are tried and examined, the 
stronger will be the conviction of their truth in the mind 
of the sincere inquirer. Of this, ample proof will be 
found in the multitude of late conversions, — conversions-, 
be it observed, not of the vulgar and illiterate, but of the 
brightest ornaments of the age, — not of tire interested and 
worldly, but of men who proved themselves ready to 



4 PREFACE. 



sacrifice every worldly advantage for the sake of con- 
science and truth, — conversions, not of the victim of pas- 
sion, as is the case when a stray Catholic becomes Prot- 
estant, but of men whose minds are pure and their hearts 
chaste, whose high and spotless morality is beyond all 
suspicion. Such are the men, who, bursting the fetters 
in which they had been hitherto bound, and tearing to 
pieces the thick veil of early prejudice by which the 
Protestant world is blindfolded, have boldly dared to act 
upon the Protestant principle of examining for themselves, 
and, having made that examination, not without hearty 
commendations of themselves to heaven, have, of late, 
added to the glory of the Redeemer by their piety and 
learning, and, by their numbers, extended the pale of his 
true Church. 

With many Protestants it is vain to argue ; their pre- 
conceived notions of Catholic doctrine are such, as to 
prevent the infusion of the smallest portion of Catholic 
truth. Their teachers have been for three hundred years 
employed, not in refuting the true Catholic doctrine, but 
in inventing calumnies against, and publishing misrepre- 
sentations of Catholicism, and then amusing their au- 
diences with a refutation, not of the Catholic religion, but 
of these absurd Protestant forgeries, and " ingenious de- 
vices," which they themselves have fraudulently palmed 
upon the public as the genuine doctrines of the Church 
of Rome. 

Even with those who do know the rules of discussion, 
and whose minds are imbued with something like honest 
fairness, controversy will be endless, if the Scripture 
alone be appealed to. That Divine Book does not and 
cannot explain itself, and, accordingly, each disputant 
will interpret to suit his own views ; hence the bitter dis- 
cussions, and interminable contradictions, observable 



PREFACE. 



among all those sects who have separated themselves 
from the Catholic Church. Tertullian, in his Book of 
Prescriptions, points out the proper method of refuting 
all heresies. He tells them to give proofs of their mis- 
sion, — opposes to their novelties, the traditional doctrines 
of the Apostolic Churches, — and points to their jarring 
and contradictory systems, as invincible proofs that they 
are teachers of error. Thus, without any appeal to 
Scripture, had the first reformers, been asked, Whence 
come ye ? from whence have ye derived your mission ? 
they would have looked very foolish^ for to this question 
they could give no reply. They were not sent by any 
lawful pastor ; — they had no mission from any Christian 
Church ; — they and their novelties came fifteen hundred 
years too late to have any connection with the Apostles. 
In thus setting up as preachers, without any mission, 
they outraged the common sense of men. Christ himself, 
Moses, and the Apostles, preached new doctrines, but 
they treated men as rational beings, — they proved they 
were sent by God by the most evident and astonishing 
miracles ; but the reforming ministers never wrought 
even one miracle to prove to their unfortunate followers 
that they were sent by God, or to stamp upon their new 
system the seal of heaven. 

These self-commissioned men railed against tradition, 
because it condemned their novelties ; but had they been 
asked to prove, without the aid of tradition, that even the 
very Bible, of which they boasted so much, was the Word 
of God, they would have been much embarrassed ; for 
without the traditional argument, no man can prove the 
Bible to be God's Word. Hence, the very first principle 
of the Protestant Creed— the authenticity, divinity, and 
integrity of the Bible — rests solely on the authority of 
tradition ; and, consequently, if, as they maintain, tradi- 

1* 



PREFACE. 



tional be only human doctrines, their whole creed 13 
merely human, for its first principle, upon which all their 
other 'doctrines are grounded, rests solely, even according 
to themselves, upon the authority of men. Those who 
talk of the Bible as the only rule of faith, would do well 
to make this matter a subject of serious meditation ; if 
they do, they will ask themselves, How can this be, 
since even the authenticity, integrity, and divinity of the 
Bible, can be proved only by a reference to tradition ? 

The heresies of modern times are as productive of sects 
and divisions as those which appeared in the days of 
Tertullian; they are daily spawning new religions, as 
perplexing and pestiferous as the parents from which 
they spring ; and thus will they continue, shooting off in 
every direction, no matter how preposterous or absurd, 
until their very absurdity will force the pious and reason- 
ing portion back into the bosom of the Catholic Church, 
and drive the thoughtless and vainly-wise section of them 
into the broad, but dark and hopeless, path of infidelity. 

On the subject of religious controversy, numerous 
works of deep research and intrinsic merit have of late 
issued from the press. Most of these, however, are so 
diffuse and expensive as to render them useless to many 
Catholics and Protestants, who, though anxious in their 
search after truth, have neither time nor education to 
enable them to read, nor money to procure, elaborate and 
expensive publications ; others, again, are so compendi- 
ous, and the arguments so abridged, that, when put into 
the hands of a superficial Protestant, they fail to produce 
conviction. Some others, in fine, there are, the scope of 
which is rather to instruct Catholics in the faith and 
practices of their religion, than to disabuse the Protestant 
mind of its prejudices and its errors. Among these works 
of real talent and merit, something seemed to the writer 



PREFACE. 



of the fallowing pages to be still wanting — viz. : an 
epitome of controversy in a concise and cheap form, 
comprising the principal arguments on the various ques- 
tions most commonly controverted, combining perspicuity 
with brevity and cheapness, that it might be within the 
reach of all Catholics who are called to give a reason for 
the faith that is in them, and of all sincerely inquiring 
Protestants, whose occupations and circumstances pre- 
clude the possibility of their having recourse to more 
learned, more voluminous, and expensive works. 

Whether this desideratum be supplied by the following 
little work, the public will soon determine. The plan 
and a portion of the groundwork are taken from a small 
controversial treatise by Father Scheffmacher, a German 
Jesuit, who held the chair of controversy at Strasburg 
about a century ago. It was at first the intention of the 
writer to give only a translation of Scheffmacher's Cate- 
chism, but, after a careful examination of it, he found 
some important articles treated with such brevity, that it 
was necessary to remodel and extend them, while others 
of vital interest were scarcely touched at all ; indeed, 
such were the changes and additions which the writer 
was obliged to make, that the present may be considered 
an almost entirely new work. As the object of the wri- 
ter is to do good, and not to acquire fame, he acknow- 
ledges his obligations, in some instances, to several Con- 
tinental and some English Divines ; and trusts that an 
indulgent public will find, in the solidity of the matter, 
an apology for all defects in manner and style. He also 
takes this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to the 
eminent Catholic prelate to whom the work, for the sake 
of security, was submitted ; and feels assured, that noth- 
ing will be found in it unworthy of his Lordship's patron- 
age. If, in fine, this publication promote the cause of 



8 PREFACE. 



religion and truth ; — if, by being put into the hands of 
the Neophyte, it lighten the burden of his brother clergy- 
men in the matter of controversial instruction ; — if it aid 
in dispelling error, — in carrying conviction to the mind, — 
in bringing back to the unity of the one fold some of the 
many who have wandered from it ; — the writer will con- 
sider his labors amply rewarded. 



CONTENTS. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF PROTESTANTISM. 

Chap. i. Nature and author of Protestantism, p. 15. Chap, 
ii. Causes of Luther's new Creed, p. 17. Chap. iii. Luther 
required to retract by Cardinal Cajetan, p. 19. Chap. iv. 
Luther judged by the Universities of Paris, &c.,p. 21. Chap. 
v. Luther cited by the secular power, p. 23. Chap. vi. Lu- 
ther's mode of supplying his Church with priests, p. 26. 



Chap. i. God not the author of the change of religion, p. 
28. Chap. ii. Luther's language to the Emperor and the 
Pope, p. 30. Chap. iii. Luther's doctrine not of God, p. 32. 
Chap. iv. Luther's schism not brought about by God, p. 34. 
Chap. v. Means used by Luther not from God, p. 36. Chap. 
vi. What then are Luther's followers obliged to ? p. 38. 

THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. 

Chap. i. To be saved we must be members of the true 
Church — the true Church is that which was established 
eighteen hundred years ago, and has existed unceasingly 
since that time, p. 40. Chap. ii. In what Church do we 
find these two marks of truth ? p. 43. Chap. iii. Can Prot- 
estants tell where and what was the true Church before Lu- 
ther's time ? p. 45. Chap. iv. What of the Hussites and 
Vaudoisl p. 47. Chap. v. Chief marks of the true Church 
— its Unity, p. 50. Chap. vi. Holiness, p. 55. Chap. vii. 
Catholicity, p. 59. Chap. viii. Apostolicity, p. 66. 



10 CONTENTS. 



RULE OF FAITH. 

Chap. i. Divine faith — its qualities and necessity, p. 72. 
Chap. ii. Faith of Protestants, not firm, but full of doubt, p. 
75. Chap. iii. They are not certain that their Bible is free 
of error, p. 78. Chap. iv. They are not certain as to the 
sense of the Bible, p. 81. Chap. v. Qualities of the Catholic 
rule of faith, p. 84. Chap. vi. Tradition as connected with 
the rule of faith, p. 86. 

PROTESTANTS DO NOT ADHERE TO THE BIBLE ALONE. 

Chap. i. They do not adhere to it in the matter of God's 
commandments, p. 88. Chap. ii. Neither do they on the 
subject of faith, p. 90. Chap. iii. Nor do they on assurance, 
p. 92. Chap. iv. They abide not by it as regards the Church, 
p. 95. Chap. v. Nor on the subject of Scripture, p. 97. 
Chap. vi. Additional proofs that they are not guided by 
Scripture alone, p. 101. 

OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. 

Chap. i. Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, p. 102. 
Chap. ii. What we owo to Jesus Christ, p. 103. Chap. iii. 
Catholics glorify Christ more than Protestants do, p. 105. 
Chap. iv. Catholics do not abandon Christ by asking the 
prayers of the saints, p. 107. Chap. v. The invocation of 
saints is Scriptural, p. 109. Chap. vi. The antiquity of this 
practico, p. 110. 

COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 

Chap. i. Reception of both kinds not necessary, p. 111. 
Chap. ii. Salvation promised to the reception of one kind, p. 
113. Chap. iii. The early and pure Church often adminis- 
tered under one kind only, p. 114. Chap. iv. Text, Matth. 
xvi. — "Drink ye all of this," answered, p. 116. Chap, v 
Additional reply to an obstinate Protestant, p. 118. 



CONTENTS. 11 



SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



Chap. i. Essentials of the Mass instituted by Christ, p. 120. 
Chap. ii. Sacrifices of the Old Law, p. 125. Chap. iii. Mass 
a true, propitiatory sacrifice, p. 127. 



PURGATORY. 

Chap. i. General proofs of the existence of a middle state, 
p. 130. Chap. ii. Proofs from the New Testament, p. 132. 
Chap. iii. Proofs from tradition, p. 136. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

Chap. i. What is it? — How is the sinner justified? p. 138. 
Chap. ii. What part has faith in justification? p. 139. Chap, 
iii. Can one in mortal sin merit heaven? p. 142. Chap. iv. 
What gives their value to good works? p. 144. Chap. v. 
Can man satisfy for his own sins ? p. 146. 

INDULGENCES. 

What is an Indulgence? — the arguments for Indulgences 
from Scripture, Fathers, and Councils, p. 149. 

HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 

Chap. i. Head of the Church, p. 153. Chap. ii. Primacy 
of St. Peter, p. 156. Chap. iii. What follows from the ad- 
mission of this supremacy, p. 159. Chap. iv. All are bound 
to obey the Bishop of Rome, p. 161. 

THE POPE IS NOT ANTICHRIST. 

This injurious assertion of Protestants is contrary to Scrip- 
ture, p. 163. 

COUNCILS. 

Chap. i. The different kinds of Councils, and the weight 
of their decisions, p. 166. Chap. ii. Number of general 
Councils and obedience due to them, p. 169. 



12 CONTENTS. 



OBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH. 

Chap. i. Scripture commands this obedience, p. 171 
Chap. ii. Object of the commandments of the Church, p. 173. 
Chap. iii. Why she forbids meats, p. 175. Chap. iv. Lent — 
who established it, 177. Chap. v. Why was Lent establish- 
ed? p. 179. Chap. vi. Reply to the scoffers at fasting and 
abstinence, p. 180. 

ON THE SACRAMENTS. 

BAPTISM. 

There are seven sacraments, p. 181. On the subject of 
infant baptism, a Protestant cannot refute an Anabaptist — 
the matter, form, and institution of baptism, p. 184. 

CONFIRMATION. 

It is a sacrament, p. 187. Scriptural and traditional 
proofs, p. 188. 

HOLY EUCHARIST. 

m 

A sacrament of the New Law, p. 190. Promises of Christ 
regarding it, p. 195. Christ declares what it is, p. 198. He 
fulfils his promise by actually instituting it, p. 204. Scriptu- 
ral proofs continued, p. 209. Reply to those who say that 
is means represents, p. 217. Transubstantiation, p. 224. 
Christ permanently present in the Eucharist, 229. Adoration 
of Christ in the Eucharist, p. 231. 

SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND CONFESSION. 

The end of this sacrament, p. 232. Confession not a 
modern invention, p. 235. Confession a Divine institution, 
p. 237. Scriptural proofs for the practice of the first Chris- 
tians, p. 240. 

EXTREME UNCTION. 

Scriptural proofs for the existence of this sacrament, p. 
243. Testimony of the Fathers, p. 246. 



CONTENTS. 13 



HOLY ORDERS. 

Orders a sacrament. Pastors by whom sent, p. 247. 

MATRIMONY. 

Matrimony a sacrament, p. 252. Catholic Church does 
not forbid any one to marry, p. 257. 

CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH. 

Why so many ceremonies, p. 259. Blessing of inanimate 
things, p. 261. Holy water, p. 263. Sign of the cross, p. 264. 
Vestments, 266. Mass in Latin, p. 268. 

PICTURES AND IMAGES. 

Their use — not forbidden by Scripture — used by God's 
own order, p. 272. Relics, p. 276. Pilgrimages, p. 278. 

VENERATION OF THE EVER-BLESSED VIRGIN. 

Catholics do not adore the Blessed Virgin or any creature, 
&c, p. 280. Scriptural proofs of her pre-eminent dignity, p. 
283. Testimony of the ancient Church and early Fathers, 
p. 288. 

On Persecution, p. 292 

On the Inquisition, p. 301 

The power of a General Council, or a Papal Consis- 
tory, in temporal matters, .... p. 305 

On the reading of Scripture, p. 307 

Monks, Friars, and Nuns, p. 310 

Charge of ignorance made against Catholics, . . p. 313 

Charge of Uncharitableness, ... . p. 321 

ON HERESY. 

What is it? 324. Peculiarities accompanying ever} r neresy, 
p. 327. Luther and Calvin as missionless as Arius, p. 330. 

2 



14 CONTENTS. 



THE VARIOUS RULES OF FAITH. 

Arian or Socinian rule exploded, p. 335. Baptists', Meth- 
odists', and Quakers' rule refuted, p. 335. Lutheran and 
Calvinistic rule proved absurd and rejected, p. 338. Many 
necessary truths not contained in Scripture, p. 347. Neither 
the Old nor the New Law recognise the Scripture as the 
only rule, p. 355. Tradition to be admitted as well as Scrip- 
ture, p. 357. 

TRUE RULE OF FAITH, OR THE TEACHING OF THE INFALLIBLE 
CHURCH OF CHRIST. 

Catholic rule of faith proved from the Old Testament, p. 
362. The same proved from the New Testament, p. 368. 
Reasons why the Catholic interpretation of the texts which 
bear on this subject should be preferred to that of Protestants, 
p. 379. Argument from reason on this subject, p. 385. 

THE CHURCH CALLED CATHOLIC IS THE TRUE INFALLIBLE 
CHURCH OF CHRIST. 

The proofs, p. 386. The Protestant Church has none of 
the Scriptural marks of truth, p. 388. The Catholic Church 
has all the Scriptural marks of truth, p. 391. 






THE 

RISE AND PROGRESS OP 

PROTESTANTISM, 

DRAWN FROM THE WORKS OF LUTHER HIMSELF. 



CHAPTER I. 



Question. What is Protestantism ? 

Answer. A new religion, invented and prop- 
agated by a man, named Martin Luther. 

Q. In what year was Luther born ? 

A. In 1483. 

Q. Where was he born ? 

A. In Eisleben, of Prussian Saxony. 

Q. Of what religion were his parents ? 

A. They were Catholics, as were all his 
ancestors. 

Q. At the time Luther was born, what was 
the religion of all Europe ? 

A All believed what the Catholics believe 
at the present time. 

Q. Was Luther himself a Catholic for any 
time ? 



16 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. He was a Catholic until his thirty-fifth 
year. 

Q. What was his state of life ? 

A. He was a monk of the order of discalced 
Augustinians. 

Q. As such had he made religious vows ? 

A. At the age of twenty- three years, he made 
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. 

Q. Was he bound to keep these vows ? 

A, Without doubt, since he made them after 
mature reflection, and of his own free will ; 
because the Prophet says, (Ps. xlix :) " Pay thy 
vow T s to the Most High ;" and God himself 
says, (Num. ch. xxx :) " If any man make a 
vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath, 
he shall not make his word void, but shall fulfil 
all that he promised/' 

Q. Did Luther obey this command of God 
by keeping his vows ? 

A. No ; he violated all the three ; he aposta- 
tized, — he married Catherine de Bore, a nun, 
like himself under vows, and he utterly diso- 
beyed every ecclesiastical authority. 

Q. Was this man in reality the founder of 
the Protestant religion, and the first of that 
sect that ever appeared in the world ? 

A, Most certainly ; for no minister, no con- 
gregation, no body of Divines professing Prot- 
estant doctrines, was ever heard of until his time. 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 17 

Q. What inference do you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion 
of Christ ; because, if the Church of Christ re- 
quired reformation, a God of purity and holi- 
ness would never have chosen such an immoral 
character — an apostate, a wholesale vow-break- 
er, a sacrilegious seducer — for that purpose. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What induced Luther to attack the an- 
cient Catholic faith and invent a new creed ? 

A. Pride and jealousy. Pope Leo having 
granted an Indulgence, Luther's pride was mor- 
tified, because the commission to preach that 
Indulgence was given to the order of St. Domi- 
nic, and not to his own. 

Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven 
by this pride and jealousy ? 

A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences it- 
self. 

Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed 
Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or 
avarice of individual Catholics ? 

A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that 
under pretence of reprehending abuses, he as- 
sailed the true faith on the subject of Indul- 
gences. 

2 # 



18 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What was his next step ? 

A. He posted on the gates of the Church 
of Wittemburg, ninety-five articles, which he 
wrote, and which contained many things not 
in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. 

Q. Were these articles refuted ? 

A. They were' and with much ability, by 
some Catholic Theologians, to whom Luther 
replied with a haughty insolence unworthy of 
a Christian. 

Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther 
make in 1517, during these disputes ? 

A. He pretended that he wished to teach 
nothing but what was conformable to Scrip- 
ture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the 
Holy See. (T. 1. Ger. Edit. Gen. p. 12.) 

Q. What did he write to Jerome, Bishop of 
Bi andenburg ? 

A. That he wished to decide nothing him- 
self, and that he wished to submit all his doc- 
trines to the Church. (Ibid, p. 54.) 

Q. What did he write to Pope Leo in 1518 ? 

A. That he would listen to that Pope's de- 
cision as to an oracle proceeding from the mouth 
of Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 58.) 

Q. What did he promise to his religious 
superiors ? 

A. That he would be silent, if his adversaries 
were placed under the same restraint. 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 19 



Q. What inference do you draw from aU 
this ? 

A. That he was either a hypocrite who did 
not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was 
quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which 
he impugned, since otherwise he could not con- 
scientiously promise silence and obedience. 

Q. What other consequences do you draw ? 

A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, 
jealousy — a disobedient hypocrite — was not the 
person to be chosen by God to reform abuses, 
if any such existed. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. What took place at Augsburg between 
Luther and Cardinal Cajetan ? 

A. The Cardinal required of him, that he 
should retract his errors, which Luther refused, 
appealing at the same time to the most cele- 
brated Universities of Germany, and to that of 
Paris, and pledging himself most humbly to 
submit to their decision. (Ibid, p. 119 and 
p. 14.) 

Q. Did he stand by that appeal ? 

A. No; lie appealed a short time after to 
the Pope. (Ibid, p. 122.) 

Q. Did he abide by this second appeal ? 

A, No; he next appealed "from the Pope 



20 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

ill-informed," " to the Pope well-informed/' 
(Ibid, p. 205.) 

Q. Did he stop even here ? 

A. No ; he then appealed to a General Coun- 
cil. (Ibid, p. 351.) 

Q. Did he abide by this resolution to submit 
to the decision of a General Council? 

A. No ; at the Diet of Worms, he declared 
flatly that he would not submit his doctrine 
to any Council. (Ibid, pp. 448, 450, 452.) 

Q. What do you conclude from such con- 
duct ? 

A. In the first place, that Luther must have 
been extremely fickle to appeal to so many 
Judges, and to abide by the decision of none. 
Secondly, that he knew his cause was bad and 
his doctrine false, since he would not submit it 
even to the best judges. Thirdly, that he must 
have been brimful of sinful pride and obstinacy, 
since he preferred his own single judgment to 
that of the whole Christian world. 

Q. But did not Luther promise to abandon 
his errors, if any one would prove them such 
from Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; but this was only an artifice to 
enable him more freely to propagate them ; be- 
cause he well knew that the Scriptures may 
be wrested into any, or every meaning ; that 
he could give them any sense he pleased, as 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 21 

the Mormons, the Millerites, and other strange 
sects do at the present day : — the Scripture is 
made to teach all sorts of contradictions. 

Q. What was his real object in this subter- 
fuge ? 

A. He wished to impose his monstrous er- 
rors on the public, as truths bearing the sacred 
stamp of Scriptural authority. Had he been 
sincere in his appeal, he would have said : — I 
shall leave it to the Church to decide whether 
my doctrine is conformable to the Scripture 
or not. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. What judgment did the Universities, to 
which Luther appealed, pronounce upon his 
doctrine ? 

A. They condemned his doctrine as false 
and heretical. (Ibid, p. 539.) 

Q. What Universities did so ? 

A. The Universities of Leipsic, Cologne, 
Louvain, and Paris. 

Q. Did Luther abide by their decision as he 
had promised ? 

A. No; on the contrary, he poured forth a 
torrent of invectives and insults against them ; 
he called the University of Paris " the mother 
of errors/' " the daughter of Antichrist/' " the 
gate of hell." (Ibid, p. 548.) 



22 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What was the judgment of the Pope to 
whom Luther appealed, and whose decisions he 
promised to receive, as if they came from the 
mouth of Christ himself? 

A. The Pope published a Bull, condemning 
forty-one articles of Luther's doctrine. 

Q. What does the Pope say in that Bull ? 

A. That he had done every thing he could 
to reclaim Luther, but that all his paternal 
cares and advices had been unavailing. He 
gives Luther sixty days to retract, and orders 
his works to be formally burned at the end of 
that period, should he persist in his errors. 

Q. Did Luther submit ? 

A. No ; he now renounces the authority to 
which he had appealed ; he writes against the 
Bull of his chief Superior, whom he had vowed 
to obey ; he denounces the Papal decision as 
the decision of Antichrist, (Ibid, p. 345;) he 
publicly burns the Bull, along with the book of 
Decretals. (Ibid, p. 353.) 

Q. Had Luther previously written, in the 
most submissive terms, declaring that he was 
willing to cast himself at the feet of his Holi- 
ness ? 

A. Yes, (Ibid, p. 58 ;) but the moment the 
Pope opposed him, he changed his language, 
declaring that not only the Bull, but the Pope 
himself should be burned. (Ibid, p. 553.) 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 23 

Q. Had Luther not written, a little before, 
that his preservation or destruction depended 
entirely on the absolution or condemnation of 
his Holiness ? (Ibid, p. 53.) 

A. Yes ; but he now declares that men must 
take up arms against the Pope, the Cardinals, 
and Bishops, and wash their hands in the blood 
of these dignitaries. (Ibid, p. 60.) 

Q. Had he not written, before this time, that 
the Pope and the Catholic Church were the 
highest spiritual authority on earth ? (Ibid, 
p. 144.) 

A. Yes ; but he now teaches, that none but 
those who oppose the Papal authority can be 
saved. (Ibid, p. 553.) 

Q. What do you now think of Luther s con- 
duct? 

A. I can discover nothing in it but the spirit 
of inconstancy, doubt, error, and revenge, with- 
out even the slightest mark of the spirit of 
God. 



CHAPTER V. 

Q. What did the secular power do to sup- 
press the rising heresy ? 

A. The Emperor Charles V. cited Luther to 
appear before the Diet of Worms, and sought to 
reclaim him by the mildest means. 



24 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What reply did Luther make to the or- 
der of the Emperor ? 

A. He replied, that from the wording of the 
order, one would suppose the Emperor to be 
either a maniac or a demoniac. (Ibid, p. 460.) 

Q. Why was not Luther confined, to prevent 
him from corrupting others, and from exciting 
disturbance ? 

A. He had received the assurance of a safe- 
conduct, and the civil authorities could not 
break their promise. When, however, the term 
of the safe-conduct had expired, the Emperor 
proscribed Luther as a sectarian, cut off from 
the body of the Church. 

Q. Whither did Luther then retire ? 

A. To the castle of Wirtemburg, where he 
wrote the most false and pernicious works. 

Q. What was the effect of these zoorks, in 
which he spoke of nothing but " evangelical 
liberty?" 

A. These works produced disturbances, se- 
dition, and amongst other evils, the German 
War of the Peasants, who committed every 
sort of excess, declaring that the rich had no 
exclusive right to their property, that every 
thing should be held in common, because in 
the 2d chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all 
property was common amongst the first Chris- 
tians. 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 25 

Q. Did other divisions and schisms soon ap- 
pear amongst the Lutherans ? 

A. Yes ; each disciple of Luther thought 
he had as good a right as his master to ex- 
pound the Scripture according to his own 
peculiar whim ; — Carlostad, Zwinglius, Calvin, 
Muncer, Schwencfcfeld, were of this opinion. 
They interpreted for themselves, denounced 
their master, and set up religions of their 
own. 

Q. Did the thing called " religion," invented 
by Luther, continue thus to give rise to new 
and different sects ? 

A. Yes ; every year gave rise to a new 
spawn of sectarians, — a short period produced 
thirty-four different sects ; and even to this 
day, the religion of Luther is as prolific of sects 
and sectarians, as the putrid carcass is of in- 
sects or vermin. So true is it, that when we 
once abandon truth, there can be no end to our 
wanderings in the mazes of error ; that when 
we once break the moorings which bind us to 
the rock of truth, by the adoption of a false 
principle, such as that of private interpretation, 
we are only the prey of endless, ever- varying, 
erroneous human opinions, — tossed to and fro 
on a wide ocean of contradictions and con- 
trarieties, — to-day on one tack, to-morrow up- 
on another, — certain of nothing, but ultimate 

3 



26 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

shipwreck on the rock of infidelity, or the quick- 
sands of heresy and schism. 

Q. What lesson do you learn from this por- 
tion of Luther's conduct ? 

A. That the man who wantonly disobeys all 
authority, both ecclesiastical and civil — the man 
who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the pur- 
pose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and prop- 
agating evident heresy and schism — cannot 
possibly be the ambassador of heaven. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Q. What means did Luther resort to for 
the purpose of supplying his new church with 
priests, seeing that no bishop could, or would 
ordain any of his followers ? 

A. He invented a new doctrine on that sub- 
ject, a doctrine never known in the Church till 
his time. 

Q. What was that doctrine ? 

A. That all Christians — men, women, and 
children, even infants — were truly and really 
priests, and that nothing was wanting to them 
but presentation to a cure. (Ibid, pp. 64, 336, 
369.) 

Q. Upon what did he found this unheard-of 
doctrine ? 

A. Upon that passage of St. Peter, " You are 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 27 

a royal priesthood." " St. Peter/' he reasoned, 
" addresses this to all Christians, therefore all 
Christians are priests/' He might equally well 
have proved, from the same passage, that all 
Christians are kings ; since St. Peter declares 
that they are all royal. Hence, as all Chris- 
tians are confessedly not kings, so neither are 
they all priests. Hence, again, all the followers 
of Luther should be satisfied, that their pre- 
tended pastors are only wolves in sheep's cloth- 
ing, who entered the fold not by the door but 
over the wall, since their pretended orders and 
mission are founded only upon a passage of 
Scripture evidently perverted to suit a pur- 
pose. 

Q. What was Luther s next step after abol- 
ishing the true priesthood amongst his follow- 
ers ? 

A. He next abolished the true Sacrifice. 

Q. What did he allege against the sacrifice 
of the Mass ? 

A. Various things which he learned from the 
devil, as he himself declares. 

Q. How does he express himself on that sub- 
ject in his book on the Mass ? (Tom. vi, p. 82.) 

A. " Having awoke," he says, " about mid- 
night, the devil commenced a dispute with me 
on the subject of the Mass." 

Q. What did the devil say to him ? 



28 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. " Listen, most sapient Doctor," said the 
father of lies : " during fifteen years you have 
said Mass almost every day. What if all these 
acts have been only so many acts of idolatry ?" 

Q. Did Luther hearken to the paternal ad- 
vice of his sable director ? 

A. He listened so well, Jhat he allowed him- 
self to be persuaded that the devil was right 
and he wrong, so that the enemy of man came 
off victor ; and though Luther in the same 
book calls the devil the most artful and lying 
deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice 
rather than that of the Church. 

Q. What think you of all this ? 

A. One can hardly tell at which to be most 
astonished, — at the open and brazen avowal 
of Luther, or at the awful blindness of those 
who follow a master, who, by his own account, 
received his training and instruction in the 
school of Satan. 



THE PROTESTANT PRETENDED REFORMA- 
TION IS NOT THE WORK OF GOD. 



CHAPTER I. 
Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the 
change in religion brought about by Luther is 
the work of God ? 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 29 

A. No one can believe it, unless he be utter- 
ly ignorant of the true nature of religion, and 
very unlearned in matters of history. 

Q. Why do you make this answer ? 

A. Because, in the first place, the author of 
the Reformation is not a man of God ; secondly, 
because his work is not the work of God ; 
thirdly, because the means which he used in 
effecting his purpose are not of God. 

Q. Why do you say Luther is not a man of 
God ? 

A. Because he has left us in his works abun- 
dant proof, that if God saw need for any reforma- 
tion in his Church, such a man as Luther would 
not be selected to carry God's will into effect. 

Q. What have you to blame in Luther's 
works ? 

A. They are full of indecencies veiy offen- 
sive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoon- 
ery well calculated to bring religion into con- 
tempt, and interlarded with very many gross 
insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian 
charity and humility, to individuals of dignity 
and worth. 

Q. Passing over his indecencies in silence, 
give us a specimen of his buffooneries and in- 
sults. What does he say to the King of Eng- 
land, replying to a book which the King had 
written against him ? (Tom. ii, p. 145.) 

3* 



30 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. He calls the King " an ass," " an idiot./* 
" a fool," " whom very infants ought to mock." 

Q. How does he treat Cardinal Albert, Arch- 
bishop and Elector of Mayence, in the work 
which he wrote against the Bishop of Magde- 
burg ? (Tom. vii, p. 353.) 

A, He calls him " an unfortunate little priest, 
crammed with an infinite number of devils." 

Q. What does he say of Henry, Duke of 
Brunswick ? (Tom. vii, p. 118.) 

A. That he had " swallowed so many devils 
in eating and drinking, that he could not even 
spit any thing but a devil." He calls Duke 
George of Saxony, " a man of straw, who, with 
his immense belly, seemed to bid defiance to 
heaven, and to have swallowed up Jesus Christ 
himself." (Tom. ii, p. 90.) 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. Was Luther s language more respectful, 
when he addressed the Emperor and the Pope ? 

A. No; he treated them both with equal 
indignities ; he said that the Grand Turk had 
ten times the virtue and good sense of the Em- 
peror, — that the Pope was " a wild beast," " a 
ravenous wolf, against whom all Europe should 



rise in arms." 



Q. What do you conclude from Luther's 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 31 

insolent, outrageous, and libertine manner of 
speaking ? 

A. That he was not the man to be chosen 
by God to reform his church ; for his language 
is the strongest proof that he was actuated, not 
by the spirit of God, but by the spirit of the 
devil. 

Q. May not his party say, that they care 
little about the manner of the man, if his doc- 
trine be true, — that it is not upon him, but upon 
the word of God, they build their faith ? 

A. If the Protestant doctrine be true, then 
God used Luther as a chosen instrument to re- 
establish his true faith ; but no reasonable man 
can possibly believe the latter ; therefore, neither 
can any reasonable man believe that the Prot- 
estant is the true faith. 

Q. May it not be objected that there were 
individual pastors in the Catholic Church as 
worthless as Luther ? 

A. Yes ; but all the pastors of the Catholic 
Church were not so at one and the same time, 
whilst Luther, at the time we speak of, was 
the first and only teacher of Protestantism. 
Besides, Christ himself gives an unanswerable 
reply to the objection, (Matth. xxiii:) "The 
Scribes and Pharisees have sitten in the chair 
of Moses ; all things therefore whatsoever they 
shall say to you, observe and do, but according 



32 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

to their works do ye not." Again, some Catho- 
lic pastors may have been bad men, but still 
they were the lawful ministers of God, having 
succeeded to lawfully commissioned predeces- 
sors ; but Luther stood alone, he succeeded to 
none having lawful authority from whom he 
could derive a mission. In fine, whatever may 
have been the lives of some vicious Catholic 
pastors, they taught nothing new, their teaching 
was the same as that of the best and holiest 
ministers of the Church. Hence, there was 
no innovation in matters of faith, or principles 
of morality. But Luther was the first to teach 
a new doctrine, unknown in the world before 
his time. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. We are now satisfied that the author of 
Protestantism was not a man of God; show 
us that his undertaking was not from God ; — 
what did he undertake ? 

A. He undertook to show that the Church 
had fallen into error, separated himself from 
her, and formed his followers into a party 
against her. 

Q. Could such an undertaking be from 
God? 

A. No ; for God has commanded us not to 
sit in judgment upon the Church, but to hear 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 33 

and obey her with respect ; " and if he will 
not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the 
heathen and publican." (Matth. chap, xviii.) 

Q. Was it the particular " territorial" Church 
of the Roman States, or the Universal Catho- 
lic Church, that Luther charged with having 
erred ? 

A. It was the Universal Church he dared to 
calumniate in this manner. 

Q. How do you prove this ? 

A. Before the time of Luther, there was no 
Christian society in the whole world which be- 
lieved the doctrines afterwards taught by Lu- 
ther ; consequently, he assailed not any par- 
ticular sect or church, but the faith of the 
whole Christian world. 

Q,. Are you quite sure, that it is incontesta- 
bly true, that no Christian body ever believed, 
before Luther s time, the new doctrines he began 
then to pfopagate ? 

A. So sure, that we have Luther's own 
authority for it. His words are, (Tom. ii, p. 
9, b. :) " How often has not my conscience 
been alarmed? How often have I not said 
to myself: — Dost thou ALONE of all men 
pretend to be wise ? Dost thou pretend that 
ALL CHRISTIANS have been in error, du- 
ring such a long period of years ?" 

Q. What was it that gave Luther most 



34 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

pain, during the time he meditated the intro- 
duction of his new religion ? 

J.. A hidden respect for the authority of the 
Church, which he found it impossible to stifle. 

Q. How does he express himself on this 
matter ? (Tom. ii, p. 5.) 

A. " After having subdued all other con- 
siderations, it was with the utmost difficulty I 
could eradicate from my heart the feeling that 
I should obey the Church." " I am not so pre- 
sumptuous/' said he, " as to believe, that it is 
in God's name I have commenced and carried 
on this affair ; I should not wish to go to 
judgment, resting on the fact that God is my 
guide in these matters." (Tom. i, p. 364, b.) 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. What think you of the schism caused by 
Luther ? Can one prudently believe that it is 
the work of God ? 

A. No ; because God himself has forbidden 
schism as a dreadful crime : St. Paul (1st Corinth, 
chap, i, ver. 10) says: "Now I beseech you, 
brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and 
that there be no SCHISMS among you ; but 
that you be perfect in the same mind and same 
judgment" 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 35 

Q. What idea did Luther himself entertain 
about schism before he blinded himself by his 
infuriated antipathy to the Pope ? 

A. He declared, that it was not lawful far 
any Christian whatever to separate himself from 
the Church of Rome. 

Q. Repeat the very words of Luther touch- 
ing this important matter. (Tom. i, p. 116, b.) 

A. " There is no question, no matter how im- 
portant, which will justify a separation from the 
Church." Yet, notwithstanding, he himself 
burst the moorings which bound him to the 
Church, and, with his small band of ignorant 
and reckless followers, opposed her by every 
means in his power. 

Q. What do you remark on historical exam- 
ples of conduct similar to this ever since the 
birth of Christianity ? 

A. That in every age, when a small body 
detached itself from the Church, on account of 
doctrinal points, it has been universally the 
case, that the small body plunged by degrees 
deeper and deeper into error and heresy, and 
in the end, brought by its own increasing cor- 
ruption into a state of decomposition, disap- 
peared and perished. Of this we have hun- 
dreds of examples ; nor can Lutherans or Cal- 
vinists reasonably hope, that their heresy and 
schism can have any other end. They are 



The doctrinal catechism. 



walking in the footsteps of those who have 
strayed from the fold of truth, — from the unity 
of faith ; and they can have no other prospect, 
than the end of so many heresies that have gone 
before them. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Why have you said, that the means adopt- 
ed by Luther, to establish his new religion, were 
not of God ? What were those means ? 

A. That he might secure followers, he em- 
ployed such means as were calculated to flatter 
the passions of men ; he strewed the path to 
heaven — not like Christ with thorns, but like 
the devil — with flowers ; he took off the cross 
which Christ had laid on the shoulders of men ; 
he made wide and easy the way, which Christ 
had left narrow and difficult. 

Q. Repeat some of Luther s improvements 
upon the religion of Christ. 

A. He permitted all who had made solemn 
vows of chastity, to violate their vows and 
many ; he permitted temporal sovereigns to 
plunder the property of the Church ; he abolished 
confession, abstinence, fasting, and every work 
of penance and mortification. 

Q. How did he attempt to tranquillize the 
consciences he had disturbed by these scanda- 
lously libertine doctrines ? 



THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 37 

A. He invented a thing, which he called 
justifying faith, to be a sufficient substitute for 
all the above painful religious works, an inven- 
tion which took off every responsibility from 
our shoulders, and laid all on the shoulders of 
Jesus Christ ; in a word, he told men to be- 
lieve in the merits of Christ as certainly ap- 
plied to them, and live as they pleased, to in- 
dulge every criminal passion, without even the 
restraints of modesty. 

Q. How did he strive to gain over to his 
party a sufficient number of presumptuous, un- 
principled, and dissolute men of talent, to preach 
and propagate his novelties ? 

A. He pandered to their passions and flat- 
tered their pride, by granting them the sovereign 
honor of being their own judges in every reli- 
gious question ; he presented them with the 
Bible, declaring that each one of them, igno- 
rant and learned, w T as perfectly qualified to de- 
cide upon every point of controversy. 

Q. What did he condescend to do for Philip, 
Landgrave of Hesse, in order to secure his 
support and protection ? 

A. He permitted him to keep two wives at 
one and the same time. The name of the sec- 
ond was Margaret de Saal, who had been maid 
of honor to his lawful wife, Christina de Saxe. 
Nor was Luther the only Protestant Doctor 

4 



38 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

who granted this monstrous dispensation from 
the law of God ; eight of the most celebrated 
Protestant leaders signed, with their own hand, 
the filthy and adulterous document. 

Q. Does the whole history of Christianity 
furnish us with even one such scandalous dis- 
pensation derived from ecclesiastical author- 
ity ? 

A. No ; nor could such brutal profligacy be 
countenanced even for a moment, seeing that 
the Scripture is so explicit on the subject. Gei*. 
ii, Matth. xix, Mark x, speak of two in one 
flesh, but never of three. But Luther and his 
brethren were guided, not by the letter of the 
Scripture, but by the corrupt passions, wishes, 
and inclinations of men. To induce their fol- 
lowers to swallow the new creed, they gave 
them, in return, liberty to gratify every appetite. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Q. If neither the author of Protestantism, 
nor his work itself nor the means he adopted to 
effect his purpose, are from God, what are his 
followers obliged to ? 

A. They are obliged, under pain of eternal 
damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the 
true Church, which, seduced by Luther, they 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 39 

abandoned : If they be sincere, God will aid 
them in their inquiry. 

Q. What is the situation of the man who 
does not at once acquit himself of this obliga- 
tion ? 

A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and 
schism ; the thing he calls a church has no pas- 
tors lawfully sent or ordained ; hence, he can 
receive none of the Sacraments declared in 
Scripture to be so necessary to salvation. 

Q. What think you of those (they are many) 
who are at heart convinced that the Catholic 
Church is the only true one, and are still such 
cowards as to dread making a public profes- 
sion of their faith ? 

A. " He," says our Saviour — Luke, ix chap., 
26 ver., " who shall be ashamed of me and of 
my words, of him the Son of Man shall be 
ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty/' 

Q. What think you of those who are inclined 
to Catholicism, but out of family considera- 
tions neglect to embrace it ? 

A. Our Saviour, in the 10th chap, of St. 
Matth., tells such, that he who loves father or 
mother more than God, is unworthy of God. 

Q,. What say you to those who become Prot- 
estants, or remain Protestants from motives of 
worldly gain or honor ? 

A. I say with our Saviour, in the 8th chap. 



40 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

of St. Mark, " What will it avail a man, if he 
gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his 

soul r 



ON THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Can any one be saved who is not in the 
true Church ? 

A. No ; for those who are not in the true 
Church, — that is, for those who are not joined, 
at least, to the soul of the Church,*— there can 
be no hope of salvation. 

Q. What says Christ upon this subject ? 
(St. Matth., chap, xviii.) 

A. That he who will not hear the Church, is 
to be reputed as a heathen. 

Q. What says St. Cyprian? (Lib. de Unit. 
Eccl.) 

A. " That he who has not the Church for 
his mother, cannot have God for his father ;" 
and the Fathers generally say, " that as all who 
were not in the ark of Noah, perished in the 
waters of the deluge ; so shall all perish, who 
are without the pale of the true Church." 

Q. What is the meaning of the ninth article 

* This question, as it regards Pagans and invincibly igno- 
rant Christians, will be treated afterwards. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 41 

of the Creed: " I believe in the holy Catholic 
Church: 9 

A That every one should firmly believe, 
that to be a member of the Catholic Church, 
is necessary in order to salvation. 

Q. By what marks can you distinguish the 
true Church from all other sects ? 

A. Particularly by two ; 1st, Whatever pre- 
tends to be the Church of Christ, must have 
been established, upwards of eighteen hundred 
years ago, by Christ and his Apostles. 2d, It 
must have existed unceasingly in the world 
from that time to the present. 

Q. Why do you say that Christ's Church 
must have been established more than eighteen 
hundred years ago ? 

A. Because it was Christ who established his 
own true Church, and it is more than eighteen 
fyjandred years since he left the world, to which 
he has never since visibly returned. 

Q. Why do you say that a church, to be the 
true Church of Christ, must have perpetually 
existed, without any interruption, since the time 
Christ established it ? 

A. Simply, because Christ promised such 
perpetuity to his Church. 

Q. What are the words of Christ on this 
subject ? Matth., xvi. chap., 18 ver. ; and 
Matth. xxviii— 20. 

4* 



42 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it;" and, "Go, therefore, 
teach all nations .... and lo ! / am with you 
all days, even to the consummation of the 
world!' 

Q. How does St. Paril speak of the Church 
of Christ ? (1 Tim., iii. chap.) 

A. He calls her the pillar and ground of 
truth. 

Q. Were it true that the Church had in 
reality fallen into idolatry, what inference would 
you draw from that fact ? 

A. That Christ was an unskilled architect 
and a false prophet ; because he must then 
have built his Church, not upon a rock, but 
upon sand, like that stupid architect of whom he 
himself speaks — Matth. chap. viii. ; and because 
the gates of hell would then have really pre- 
vailed against the Church in spite of his pre- 
diction. 

Q. What conclusion do you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That Christ established a Church; that 
that Church has existed in every age ; that she 
exists at present ; that she never could, and 
never can, fall into any error dangerous to 
salvation on matters of faith or morality ; that 
every one, in fine, is bound with a firm and 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 43 

unshaken faith to believe what she teaches, be- 
cause her doctrines are, like those of her Divine 
Master, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. In what Church do you find those two cer- 
tain marks of truth, of which you have spoken ? 

A. In the Catholic Church, and in no other. 

Q. Was she established eighteen hundred 
years ago ? 

A. Yes ; for no man has ever yet been able 
to date her origin from any later period. 

Q. Has she existed always, without even the 
least interruption, during that time ? 

A. Yes; and no one has ever ventured to 
point out such interruption, or how long, if it 
took place at all, such interruption lasted. 

Q. How does St. Augustine establish this 
necessary antiquity and perpetuity of the 
Church up to his own time ? (Epist. a Gener.) 

A. He proves it by the uninterrupted succes- 
sion of Roman Pontiffs, w T hose names he gives, 
one after the other, for the complete period, to 
the number of thirty-nine. 

Q. How many Popes have governed the 
Church from St. Peter to the present Pontiff, 
Gregory the 16th, inclusively? 

A. Two hundred and fifty-six. 



44 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Are the two certain marks of the tnie 
Church, of which you have spoken, discoverable 
in the Protestant Church ? 

A. No ; neither in the Episcopal, nor Cal- 
vinistic branch of it. 

Q. How long is it since the Lutheran 
Church was established ? 

A. About three hundred years ; — Luther 
preached the first Protestantism ever known in 
1517 ; and Calvinism was first preached in the 
year 1537. 

Q. Were there no Lutheran or Calvinistic 
Churches before these dates ? 

A. No ; no such doctrines, nor churches, 
nor pastors, nor sects, were ever known in any 
country prior to that time. 

Q. How do you reason from these facts 
against your adversaries ? 

A. Any church, to be the true Church, must 
have been established eighteen hundred years 
ago; but the Episcopalian and Presbyterian 
Churches are only of three hundred years' 
duration ; therefore, neither of them can have 
any pretension to be the Church of Christ. 

Q. May not your adversaries reply, that 
the Church of the first four centuries believed 
as they do ; that, at the end of that time, the 
Church fell into superstition and idolatry ; 
and that God judged it necessary, after the 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 45 

Church was drowned in error for eleven hun- 
dred years, to send Luther and Calvin to re- 
form her ? 

A. Yes, they may, and do advance many 
absurdities, and this is one of them, which does 
not bring them out of their difficulties ; for 
Christ says, his Church cannot fail, — that the 
gates of hell shall never prevail against her, — 
that his holy Spirit shall teach her all truth 
for ever, — that he will abide with her all 
days, even to the consummation of the world. 
Therefore it is an infallible truth, that any 
Church to be the Church of Christ, must have 
been established eighteen hundred years ago ; 
therefore, that Church once established, could 
never fail; therefore the Protestant Church, 
the mere child of yesterday, cannot be the 
Church of Christ ; therefore her very founda- 
tion is nothing but error and blasphemy, for she 
is built on the supposition, that Christ was 
either unwilling or unable to keep his promise 
— a supposition which implies the most aggra- 
vated blasphemy, tantamount to a denial of the 
Divinity of Christ. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. What question can you put to a Prot- 
estant, to which he can give no satisfactory 
reply ? 



46 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Ask him where the true Church was 
before the time of Luther and Calvin. 

Q. May he not reply, that the Church was 
then invisible, that there were Christians in 
every age who held the doctrines of Luther and 
Calcin, but that they dared not openly profess 
their faith ? 

A. Yes ; but this answer will satisfy no man 
of ordinary understanding ; for surely, it must 
be evident to every one who thinks, that men 
who believed in their hearts one creed and pro- 
fessed another, like these invisible Protestants, 
were only hypocrites, dastardly traitors to their 
religion, utterly incapable of composing the holy, 
fearless body of the true Church of Christ. 

Q. Was not the Jewish Church for a time 
invisible, and did not God say to the prophet 
Elias, that there were seven thousand men con- 
cealed who had never bent the knee to Baal ? 

A. When the Jewish Church was invisible 
in the kingdom of Israel, it was in a most 
flourishing state in the land of Judah ; but the 
Protestant Church existed in no kingdom du- 
ring the years of its invisibility, nor have we 
the Word of God assuring us, that there were 
seven thousand invisible Protestants concealed 
under a cloud anywhere. 

Q. Have you any other reply to make ? 

A. Yes ; there is a very great difference be- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 47 

tween the Christian and the Jewish Church ; 
— God never promised that he would be with 
the Jewish Church all days, that the gates of 
hell should not prevail against her. 

Q. Have you any other way of proving 
that the true Church must have been always 
visible ? 

A. If the Church had not been always visible, 
it would have been impossible to obey the com- 
mand of Christ — that we should hear and obey 
his Church. The Church is composed of men 
teaching and men taught, and are these invisi- 
ble ? Are preaching, public prayer, baptism, 
the administration of the other sacraments, du- 
ties that can be performed invisibly ? Is not 
the subterfuge of an invisible Church a mere 
absurdity ? May not any Mormon, Millerite, 
or madman, declare his nostrums the true reli- 
gion, hitherto invisible, now at length revealed ? 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Have our adversaries any other reply 
to make to thai, for them, annoying question . 
" Where was the Church of God before Lu- 
ther's time ?" 

A. Yes ; some of them say, that the Church 
of Christ was that of the Hussites, the Vaudois, 
and other heretics of the twelfth century, and 



48 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that the Protestant Church is only a continua- 
tion of it under a different name. 

Q. Can this reply be sustained by argu- 
ment ? 

A. No ; for, in the first place, though the 
principles of these heretics differed in some 
points from the Catholic faith, yet their doc- 
trine generally agreed with the Catholic, and 
differed widely from that of Luther and Calvin. 
Therefore, inasmuch as they held the Mass, 
seven sacraments, &c, they must have been 
idolaters according to Protestants ; and inas- 
much as they held doctrines opposed to Protest- 
ants, they cannot be considered as forming one 
and the same Church. Besides, even admitting, 
what is not the fact, for the sake of argument, 
that the Hussites, &c, were Protestants, this 
only makes the Protestant sect two or three 
hundred years older ; it leaves still twelve hun- 
dred years of non-existence to be accounted 
for : — this is an awful chasm. Where, still we 
ask, during this long period, was the Church of 
Christ ? What other prior sect of heretics can 
Protestants link themselves with, in order to 
stretch out their existence over all these ages ? 
None ; and if not, then still they do not form 
the Church of Christ ; because they cannot 
connect their Church in any possible way with 
Christ or his Apostles. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 49 

Q. What say you to those who admit that 
the Catholic Church was the true Church up to 
Luther s time, but that many errors and abuses 
had crept into her, which it was necessary to 
correct ? 

A. If the Catholic Church was the Church 
of Christ before Luther, she must be so still ; 
hence, those who have left her are, to say the 
least, schismatics. Again, either these supposed 
errors were prejudicial to salvation, or they 
were not. If they were, then Christ has failed 
in his word, — then the gates of hell have pre- 
vailed against the Church, and this in the very 
teeth of Christ's promises and security to the 
contrary. If these errors were not prejudicial 
to salvation, then they were only the errors of 
individuals, not the errors of the Church teach- 
ing ; and, accordingly, it was merely necessary 
to correct the individuals, but on every account 
to cling to the Church, as the pillar and ground 
of truth ; to act otherwise, was to be guilty of 
the dreadful crime of schism, so awfully de- 
nounced by St. Paul. 

Q. May not these people say, that it was we 
who separated from them, not they from us ? 

A. No ; for when there are two bodies — one 
of which is great, the other small, — one ancient, 
the other modern, — one teaching the doctrine 
of a long series of ages, the other teaching a 

5 



50 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

new creed — it is evidently not the great or the 
ancient, both in existence and doctrine, but the 
small and modern body which becomes re- 
sponsible for the separation : a small portion 
detached from a mountain can never with pro- 
priety be called the mountain itself. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Are there any other marks of the true 
Church ? 

A. Yes ; four, enumerated in the Nicene 
Creed : " I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and 
Apostolic Church!' 

Q. Bid Christ require unity in his Church ? 

A. He says, John, chap, x — 16, that there is 
but "one/oM and one shepherd." St. Paul, 
Rom. chap, xii — 5, says : " We, being many, 
are one body in Christ ;" and Ephes., chap, 
iv : that there is but " one body, one spirit, one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism." The Church, 
therefore, is one body or fold, having one faith, 
under one shepherd. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That no Church can be the Church of 
Christ which has not this oneness or unity. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church one ? 

A. On principle it cannot be one ; for its 
first principle — " private interpretation" — has 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 51 

ever produced, and will ever produce, neces- 
sarily, schisms and divisions ; each one, learned 
or ignorant, interprets according to his peculiar 
light or interest. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church one in its gov- 
eminent ? 

A. No ; it has for its head, the King in Prus- 
sia, the Queen or State in England ; and in 
Scotland, the government is various, according 
to the whims of the various sects. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her gov- 
ernment ? 

A. Yes ; all the Catholics in the world are 
subject to their priests, these priests are subject 
to their bishops, and these bishops are appointed 
by, and subject to, Peter's lawful successor in 
the See of Rome. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church one in her 
faith ? 

A. She has one faith in England and another 
in Scotland, a third in Switzerland, and a fourth 
in Prussia. The Free Kirk of Scotland holds 
as damnable, what the Established Kirk believes 
to be good and true ; and the Puseyite believes 
what the English Church repudiates. In one 
Protestant Church, bishops, and ordination by 
bishops, are believed to be necessary ; in 
another they are rejected. One Protestant 
body believes in the real presence ; and anoth- 



52 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

er, in a bare and empty memorial. All the 
minor Protestant sects are in the same melan- 
choly predicament,— they differ from one an- 
other on some or many essential points. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her 
faith ? 

A. All the Catholics in the world have one 
and the same creed. Amongst Catholics there 
are no sects — no Church of Scotland, or Eng- 
land, or France : All Catholics believe the 
same truths, and to reject any one of these 
truths, is to cut one's self off from the Catholic 
communion. The Catholic Church is the 
Church, not of any nation, but of the world. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church one in her 
moral doctrines ? 

A. No ; one sect of Protestants believes in 
predestination, in salvation by faith alone ; 
and another sect of Protestants holds the ne- 
cessity of good works and free will, whilst they 
denounce the above Calvinistic principles, as 
leading directly to the most debasing immo- 
rality. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her moral 
principles ? 

A, All Catholics follow the same moral prin- 
ciples, — the same vices are denounced on the 
one hand, and the same virtues inculcated on 
the other. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 53 

Q. 75 the Protestant discipline everywhere 
the same ? 

A. It is different in every country and every 
sect. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church one on this 
head ? 

A The Catholic Church is strictly uniform 
on every essential matter of discipline, whether 
that regard the pastors or the people ; — the 
same great feasts and fasts are everywhere 
observed. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church one in her 
Liturgy or public service ? 

A. No ; on this she exhibits the most absurd 
contrariety ; — Scotland worships God in one 
way, England in another, Geneva in a third, 
Prussia in a fourth, Sweden in a fifth, and 
wherever a handful of Protestants can be 
assembled together, they strike out a service 
for themselves, according to their particular 
views. 

Q. Is the Catholic Liturgy everywhere uni- 
form ? 

A. The same great sacrifice of the Mass, 
and essentially in the same words, is every- 
where offered ; the same seven sacraments are 
everywhere administered in the same manner ; 
even the forms of the public service are every- 
where essentially the same. 

5* 



54 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What inference do you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That the Protestant Church is a house 
divided against itself — that it is not one, but 
manifold ; therefore, it is not the Church of 
Christ : — That the Catholic Church is one 
strictly in every sense of the word ; and, con- 
sequently, that as it is the only Church on earth 
which has perfect unity, it is unquestionably the 
one true Church of Christ. 

Q. Are not Protestants one, because they 
all follow the Bible ? 

A. On the contrary, it is the Bible, abused 
by the principle of private interpretation, which 
occasions all their errors, heresies, and schisms. 
The Prussian Mucker teaches his filthy princi- 
ples from the Bible ; the silly Mormon palms 
his nostrums on the Bible ; the execrable So- 
cialist proves his brutalities from the Bible ; the 
Millerite extracts Millerism from the Bible ; — 
in a word, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, — all per- 
vert God's Word in order to make it support 
their jarring and contradictory systems, and 
they do this with as much assurance, as if God 
could teach that black is white, or that a thing 
may be black and white at the same time. 
Thus, amongst the Presbyterians of Scotland, 
one sect teaches that Church patronage is 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 55 

damnable, whilst another teaches that it is a 
good thing. 

CHAPTER VI, 

Q. What is the second mark of the true 
Church ? 

A. Holiness or sanctity. 

Q. Does it appear from Scripture, that 
Christ's Church should be holy ? 

A. The prophet Isaiah calls her, — Isa. chap, 
xxxv, 8, — "a way which shall be called the 
holy way, over which the unclean shall not 
pass" David, — Ps. xcii, 5, — says: "Holiness 
becomes thy house, O Lord, for length of days" 
St. Paul, — Eph. v, 25, — declares, that " Christ 
loved the Church and delivered himself for it, 
that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the 
laver of water and the word of life, that he 
might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, 
but that it should be holy and without blemish" 
See also Tit. ii, 14, and 1 Peter, ii, 9. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church holy in her 
pastors ? 

A. No ; to this she can have no pretension ; 
her pastors are mere men of the world, not 
subjected to the restraints of Apostolic poverty, 
chastity, or mortification. The burden of their 



56 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

religious duty seems to be, the mere preaching 
of a sermon or two upon Sunday ; whilst most 
of their time must be employed, not in Apostolic 
duties, but in looking after their own worldly 
interest, and that of their wives and children. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her pas- 
tors ? 

A. They are all separated from the world 
and its gratifications, and dedicated entirely to 
God's glory and the sanctification of souls ; — 
no worldly cares intrude upon them ; — the 
Church is their spouse, and the people their 
spiritual children ; — they are ever, in a variety 
of w r ays, employed in the spiritual improvement 
of their flock ; — they watch with tender care, 
from the cradle to the grave, those committed 
to their charge ; — and, as they have no wives 
or families to provide for, their hearts are in 
their duties ; and whatever of this world's 
goods they may possess, is employed for the 
glory of God. 

Q. Are there any means of Holiness in the 
Protestant Church ? 

A. No ; they have destroyed them all ; they 
have rejected the soul of religion in rejecting 
the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and five of the 
sacraments, all abundant sources of grace, as 
you shall afterwards see, where the subjects are 
treated ; and even the two sacraments which 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 57 

they still retain, are by them reduced to mere 
empty forms — the mere giving of a name, and 
partaking of a little bread and wine. 

Q. Has the Catholic Church means of holi- 
ness ? 

A. Yes ; the most abundant, in the holy 
sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments, 
which are all so many channels, through which 
the graces which flow from the wounds of our 
Redeemer are conveyed to the souls of Catho- 
lics of every class, in every condition, and at 
every period of life, from the time they enter 
this world, until they render their souls into the 
hands of God. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church holy in her 
doctrines ? 

A. The very contradictory nature of the 
various moral doctrines, taught by the ever- 
varying sects of Protestants, must, of itself, be 
ruinous to holiness. But what places the un- 
holiness of her doctrines beyond all doubt, is her 
doctrine on predestination, on free will, her be- 
lief that faith alone is necessary, and that good 
works are useless ; for who, believing such ab- 
surdities as these, can have any motive to avoid 
vice or practice virtue ? Holiness is incom- 
patible with these immoral principles. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her doc- 
trines 1 



58 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. She teaches her children to believe all 
that God has revealed, and to practice all that 
he has commanded ; — multitudes of Catholics, 
not content with observing the precepts, prac- 
tise even the counsels of the Gospel. Fasting, 
mortification, unremitting prayer, self-denial, 
and a frequent participation of the sacraments, 
all of which are so pressingly recommended in 
the Scripture, are enjoined and practised by 
the whole Church, from the sovereign pontiff 
down to the humblest member of Christ's mys- 
tical body. 

Q. Were there, in consequence of these holy 
means and holy doctrines, many members of 
the Catholic Church illustrious for sanctity? 

A. Yes ; multitudes, and of every class, from 
the king to the mendicant, and from the Pope 
to the deacon. 

Q. Have even adversaries admitted this ? 

A. Yes ; the Apology for the Confession of 
Augsburg, Art. 13, declares, that St. Bernard, 
St. Francis, and St. Bonaventure, were saints ; 
even the Calendar of the Church of England 
admits others ; and almost all our saints are 
admitted by the Puseyite section of the English 
Church. 

Q. In what Church did these admitted saints 
live and die ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 59 

A. In the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman 
Church. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That as one can be sanctified through 
Christ in the Catholic Church, so he can cer- 
tainly be saved in the same Church ; and if he 
can be saved in this Church, it must be the true 
Church, and he can be saved in no other ; for 
Christ did not establish two Churches. There 
is only one baptism, one fold, one shepherd, 
one revelation, containing one true set of doc- 
trines. 

Q. Did God ever work miracles to testify 
the sanctity of a Catholic ? 

A. Even enemies admit that he did. That 
he wrought miracles by the hand of St. Francis 
Xavier, is allowed by Baldeus, Hackluit, and 
Tavernier, all rigid Lutherans and Calvinists. 
Now, St. Francis was a Catholic Priest ; and 
hence the Catholic religion, which, by the aid 
of these miracles, he taught and propagated, 
must be the true religion, since God could not 
give the testimony of his Almighty hand to 
error. 

CHAPTER VII. 

Q. What is the third mark of the true 
Church ? 
A. Catholicity or universality. 



60 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Is this mark evidently required by Scrip- 
ture ? 

A. According to Scripture, the Catholic 
Church must be universal in three ways, — 
universal as to time, universal as to place, and 
universal as to doctrine. 

Q. Where do you find that she must be uni- 
versal as to time ? 

A. In Isaiah, lxii, 6 — " Upon thy walls, O 
Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen all the 
day and all the night, they shall never hold 
their peace." Isa. ix, 7 — " Of the increase of 
his government and peace .... there shall be 
no end." He shall sit upon the throns of 
David "to order it, and establish it, ....from 
henceforth even for ever." In John, xiv, 16 
— " I will ask the Father, and he shall give you 
another Paraclete, that he may abide with you 
for ever" 

Q. Where do you find universality, as to 
place, laid down in Scripture ? 

A. In Malachi, i, 11 — "From the rising of 
the sun to the going down thereof, my name is 
great amongst the Gentiles." Ps. xxi, 28 — 
" All the ends of the earth shall remember, and 
shall be converted to the Lord." Ps. ii, 8 — 
" Ask of me, and I will give the Gentiles for 
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
the earth for thy possession" Luke, xxiv, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 61 

46 — " That penance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all 
nations." Acts, i, 8 — "And ye shall be wit- 
nesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea 
and Samaria, and even to the uttermost parts 
of the earth" 

Q. Is there any passage of Scripture, in 
which the above three kinds of universality are 
clearly laid down, as necessary qualities of the 
true Church ? 

A. Yes ; in the commission given by Christ 
to his Apostles— Matth. xxviii, 19, 20— "Go- 
ing, therefore, teach ye all nations ; • . . .teach- 
ing them to observe all things, whatsoever I 
have commanded you ; and, behold, I am with 
you all days, even to the consummation of the 
world" Here you have, from the lips of Christ 
himself, an express attestation, that his Church 
will be Catholic or universal as to time, place, 
and doctrine. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church universal in 
these three ways ? 

A. No ; nor in any one of them. She is not 
universal as to time ; for a few centuries back 
she had no existence ; she is little more than 
three hundred years old. A Church is com- 
posed of pastors and people, teaching and be- 
lieving certain doctrines, and no such body 
holding Protestant doctrines was known in 

6 



62 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the world for fifteen hundred years after Christ 
left it. She is not universal either as to num- 
bers or place ; even the Greek Church is before 
her in numbers ; and on this head she cannot 
bear a comparison with the Catholic Church. 
According to the Scientific Miscellany, the 
total number of Protestants in the world is 
48,985,000 ; the total number of Greeks is 
56,360,000 ; whilst the number of Catholics is 
254,655,000 ; that is, the Catholics are nearly 
six to one. But if we take each Protestant 
Church by itself, and this is the true point of 
comparison, (for these Protestant Churches all 
differ from one another.) we will find, then, 
that Catholics are to Presbyterians as sixty-five 
to one, and to the Church of England as thirty- 
six to one. Hence, it is not only incorrect, but 
ludicrous, to call any of these Protestant sects 
Catholic or universal. Neither can they be 
called universal as to place ; for Protestants 
are confined to a small corner of the earth, as 
will be evident, by the following statistical ac- 
count, from the above authority. 

EUROPE. ASIA. AFRICA. 

Catholics, 154,444,600 40,000,000 12,400,000 

Protestants,... 39,675,000 50,000 10,000 

AMERICA. OCEANICA. 

Catholics, 34,1 10,000 3,450,000 

Protestants,... 9,150,000 50,000 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 63 

These statistics are the most decisive proof that 
the Protestant is not the Church of all nations ; 
she is not even the Church of any one nation, 
no, nor of even one parish exclusively on the 
face of the earth. In fine, she is not universal 
as to doctrine, either as to extent or truth ; for 
she has taught, and does teach, many evident 
errors, such as predestination, the rejection of 
free will and good works, and the impossibility 
of keeping the commandments. And as to the 
teaching of all truth, she can have no preten- 
sion to it, since each Protestant sect has its pe- 
culiar doctrines ; — scarcely two of them have 
the same creed. They even rejected, as apoc- 
ryphal, at one time, whole books of the sacred 
Scripture, w T hich they now admit — they reject 
to-day what they taught yesterday. Indeed, 
in point of doctrine, whether moral, dogmatical, 
or disciplinary, they present only one confused 
and revolting mass of contradictions, contra- 
rieties, and absurdities. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church universal in the 
above three ways ? 

A. No one will dare to deny that she is the 
Church of all ages. She is the only Church 
upon earth that can be visibly traced back 
through every age to the time of Christ. She 
is the Church of all nations, as is evident from 
the above statistical argument, — there is not 



64 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

a Christian, —nay, scarcely a Pagan — nation, 
that does not attest her actual presence, or, by 
noble monuments, her former greatness ; — her 
ancient canon law is still, in a great measure, 
the law of Scotland, as it is the foundation of 
the law of France, and the whole civil law of 
Europe and America ; — her noble temples and 
colleges, dedicated to the living God, are still 
the pride of England; — the ruined monastic 
establishments and glorious cathedrals, that 
once adorned every country of Europe, have 
survived the Vandal hand of barbarous reform, 
as ever-enduring monuments, to perpetuate the 
history of Catholic greatness. Protestantism 
has never converted even one Pagan nation ; 
whilst every people that have been brought to 
the knowledge and worship of the true God, 
professing that they owe their conversion to 
the Catholic Church, loudly proclaim her uni- 
versality ; — everywhere her incense ascends ; — 
everywhere her sacraments are administered ; 
everywhere her pure sacrifice is offered. To 
her alone did the Prophet speak, when he said : 
" I will give the nations for thine inheritance, 
and the ends of the earth for thy possession." 
In fine, she is universal as to her doctrine ; — it 
is everywhere the same ; — it has, like the pure 
gold, passed through the ordeal of eighteen hun- 
dred years' examination, unchangeable and un- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 65 

changed ; the combined efforts of heresy and 
infidelity against it have been unavailing. She 
teaches her children to observe all that God has 
commanded, and to believe all that he has re- 
vealed : her doctrine is, like her Divine founder, 
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 

Q. What says St. Augustine on the word 
Catholic ? 

A. " The very name of Catholic/ 3 he says, 
" keeps me in the Church. Heretics have done 
their utmost to obtain that name, yet they have 
never been able to succeed. If a stranger, on 
entering any city, were to ask, ' where is the 
Catholic Church?' no heretic would dare to 
point out his heretical conventicle," (Tom. vi, 
Contra. Ep. Fund. chap. 4.) 

Q. Give us Saint Jerorris words, contra 
Lucif. 

A. " When you see any body inherit its 
name from a particular man, as the Marcion- 
ites from Marcion, the Valentinians from Val- 
entinus," (we may add the Lutherans from 
Luther, the Calvinists from Calvin,) " you may 
look on that body, not as the Church of Christ, 
but as the school of Antichrist." 

Q. Give us a good reason why your name 
of Catholic is the best proof that you are in 
the true Church. 

A. Those who remained in communion with 

6 * 



66 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the ancient body of the faithful retained the 
ancient name, whilst innovators gave to their 
followers either their own name, or one derived 
from their peculiarly novel doctrine, or from 
the country in which this new creed made its 
first appearance. Thus the Lutherans, the 
Calvinists, the Church of England, the Metho- 
dists, the Quakers, the Moravians, show, by 
their very names, the human origin of their 
religion. 

Q. What inference do you draw from all 
that y®u have said on this mark of Catho- 
licity f 

A. That the Scripture expressly requires, in 
the true Church, universality as to time, place, 
and doctrine; that the Protestant Church is 
not universal in any of these three ways ; that 
the Catholic Church is the only Church upon 
earth that has this triple universality, and, con- 
sequently, that it is the true Church of Christ. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Q. What is the fourth mark of the true 
Church f 

JL Apostolicity. 

Q. What do you mean by this word ? 

A. That any Church pretending to be the 
Church of Christ, must be able to trace her 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 67 

doctrine, her orders, and her mission, to the 
Apostles of Christ. 

Q. Why should this be the case ? 

A. Because, during all the time the Church 
has existed, there must have been true pastors 
" for the work of the ministry, for the edifica- 
tion of the body of Christ," — Ephes. chap. iv. 
" Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have ap- 
pointed watchmen. . ..they shall never hold 
their peace," — Isa. lxii, 6. These pastors must 
have been lawfully sent ; for " no man taketh 
the honor of the priesthood upon himself, but 
he that is called by God as Aaron was," — Heb. 
v, 4. Thus, Christ sent the Apostles ; these 
Apostles sent others, — for example, Paul and 
Barnabas ; and again, Paul sent Timothy and 
Titus ; and, in this manner, each succeeding 
generation of pastors was sent by the preceding 
from Christ to the present time ; and the gen- 
eration of pastors giving their commission to 
their successors, did it, by the power of Christ 
originally given, in these w r ords : " As my Fa- 
ther hath sent me, I also send you." In fine, 
the pastors of every age must have been or- 
dained, according to that of St. Paul to Titus, — 
Chap, i, 5 : " For this cause I left thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldst set in order the things that 
are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in 
every city, as I also appointed thee." 



68 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. May it not be said that the Protestant 
Church is Apostolical in her doctrine, seeing 
that she adopts the Scripture as her rule ? 

A. If she were, all Protestants would teach 
the same truths ; and surely no man in his 
senses will assert, that either the Apostles or 
the Scripture could teach all the contradictory 
and absurd creeds of Protestantism. Besides, 
for fourteen hundred years after the last of the 
Apostles left this world, Protestant doctrines 
were unknown amongst mankind. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic in he?" 
doctrine ? 

A. Even our adversaries admit this in spite 
of themselves ; for whilst they unwittingly admit 
that we were the first Church, they as uniformly 
maintain that Popery is unchangeable. We 
teach the same doctrine now which was taught 
in every century and country since the time of 
Christ ; our doctrines cannot be traced to any 
man or set of men, to any particular country 
or date, posterior to the time of the Apostles ; 
we defy our adversaries to trace it to any but 
Apostolic authority. Besides, we are the only 
Church that has existed in every age, since the 
Apostolic times. 

Q. Is not the Protestant Church Apostolic 
as to mission ? 

A. Certainly not ; Luther was the first Prot- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 69 

estant minister the world ever saw. By whom 
was he sent ? Not by God ; for he never 
wrought one miracle to prove it, and his life 
was such as to prove that he was sent by an 
opposite authority. Not by the Apostles ; for 
he came fifteen hundred years too late to have 
any connection with them. Not by the Catho- 
lic Church ; for she cut him off from her com- 
munion, and she could not give a commission 
to teach error directly opposed to her own 
creed. No Protestant Church existed prior to 
his time from which he could receive a com- 
mission ; therefore he had no mission ; there- 
fore all his followers, in the heretical and schis- 
matical body to which he gave being, are mis- 
sionless intruders, who pay no regard to the 
words of St. Paul; "How shall they preach 
unless they be sent ?" — Rom. x. Of such as 
they, the Almighty says, — Jer. xxiii, 21 : — "I 
have not sent these prophets, yet they ran : I 
have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied." 
It is incumbent upon them to show that they 
are not the thieves and robbers mentioned by 
St. John, chap. x. 

Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic as to 
mission ? 

A. The Catholic Church alone, has, beyond 
all doubt, existed in every age, from the present 
till the Apostolic age. Hence, her pastors are 



70 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the only pastors on earth, who can trace their 
mission from priest to bishop, and from bishop 
to Pope, back through every century, until they 
trace that mission to the Apostles, who were 
commissioned by Christ himself. We have a 
complete list of an uninterrupted chain of Ro- 
man Pontiffs, reaching from the present Pon- 
tiff, Pius the 9th, to St. Peter. We have lists 
of all the Catholic sees in the world, and the 
names of the bishops who, in every age, oc- 
cupied them; so that w T e have an unbroken 
succession of bishops ruling, teaching, and 
adorning every age and clime ; all these in 
strict communion with the chief see, that of 
Rome. 

Q. Is the Protestant Church Apostolic as to 
orders ? 

A. The fact is, they have no orders at all, 
nor do many of them even pretend to have 
orders. The ministers of the various Calvinis- 
tic sects, as well as those of all other reformed 
sects not Lutheran, are mere laymen. The 
Lutherans, generally, can have no orders ; be- 
cause they have never had a regular succession 
of validly ordained bishops from whom they 
could receive orders. As to the orders of the 
Church of England, they are, to say the least, 
extremely doubtful ; because it has never been 
proved, that the first Protestant bishop of the 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 71 

Church of England was himself validly ordain- 
ed or consecrated, and because the true form of 
ordination was not in use in the Church of 
England during one hundred and twelve years. 
But granting that they really are validly ordain- 
ed, they have no mission, and hence they can 
be reputed only as so many suspended, schis- 
matical, and heretical priests. In fine, as the 
whole fabric of Protestantism is only three 
hundred and thirty-two years old, it is manifest, 
that her ministers cannot trace their Orders to 
the Apostolic times. 

Q. Are the orders of the Catholic priesthood 
Apostolic ? 

A. They can be traced from priest to bishop, 
and from bishop to Pope, through every century 
back to the time of the Apostles. Indeed, a 
perpetual succession of Catholic pastors has al- 
ways existed ; and hence, so little doubt is there 
even amongst Protestants on this subject, that 
the Church of England, by claiming her or- 
ders from us, clearly and unequivocally admits 
the Apostolicity of the orders of the Catholic 
Church. 

Q. What inference do you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That the Protestant Church is not, and 
the Catholic Church is, the true Church of 
Christ. 



72 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Why this conclusion ? 

A. According to Scripture, the true Church 
must derive, by a perpetual and uninterrupted 
succession from the Apostles, her doctrines, her 
mission, and her orders ; but the Protestant 
Church is not Apostolical in any of these ways, 
— therefore she cannot be the true Church. The 
Catholic Church, on the contrary, is evidently 
Apostolical in her doctrine, her orders, and her 
mission, — therefore she is the true Church of 
Christ. 

Q. What general inference do you draw 
from all we have said on the marks of the 
Church ? 

A. That the Protestant Church has not even 
one of these Scriptural marks of truth ; hence, 
her claim to be the Church of Christ, is ludicrous 
in the extreme ; that, on the other hand, as we 
have seen, the Catholic Church evidently pos- 
sesses them all, — therefore she is the one, holy, 
Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 



RULE OF FAITH. 



CHAPTER I. 
Q. Is it possible to be saved without Divine 
faith ? 
A. No ; for St. Paul, in his Epistle to the 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 73 

Hebrews, chap, xi, says — " Without faith, it is 
impossible to please God." 

Q. What two particular qualities must faith 
have that it may be divine ? 

A. It must be firm and undoubting ; and it 
must be prudently firm and undoubting. 

Q. Why firm and undoubting ? 

A. Because, otherwise, it will not be divine 
faith, but mere human opinion. Divine faith 
is incompatible with doubt ; rather than call 
the smallest particle into doubt, we must be 
ready to lay down our lives ; for God, the au- 
thor of faith, cannot deceive. 

Q. Why do you say that faith must be pru- 
dently firm ? 

A. Because, no matter how strong and firm 
the inward conviction be, if it be irrational — 
that is, grounded on false reasoning — it is not 
a virtue, but rather the effect of a vicious, be- 
cause wilful, obstinacy ; such is the faith of the 
Turk, and the Heretic of every sect. 

Q. Where do you find the two above-men- 
tioned conditions of divine faith ? 

A. Only amongst Catholics ; because they 
only follow a rule of faith, which places the 
truth of their belief beyond the possibility of 
doubt. 

Q. What is that which you here call a rule 
of faith ? 

7 



74 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. That which guides us to the belief and 
practice of all that God has revealed and com- 
manded. 

Q. What is the Catholic rule of faith ? 

A. The whole Word of God, understood in- 
fallibly in its true sense. 

Q. Is not the written Word of God alone a 
sufficient rule of faith ? 

A. No ; because it is susceptible of different 
senses, and the interpreter may give it a wrong 
sense. Hence, that it may be to us an infallible 
rule of true faith, we must be absolutely certain 
that we understand the disputed passages cor- 
rectly. 

Q. Have Catholics on this head any cer- 
tainty ? 

A. Their * certainty is entire, because they 
receive from the Church, which they prove to 
be infallible, the exposition of the Scripture. 

Q. Have not Protestants this same cer- 
tainty ? 

A. No ; for each Protestant explains the 
Scripture according to his own particular light, 
or fancy, or prejudice. Hence, he can never 
be certain that he is right, as he can never be 
absolutely certain that he is not deceived in his 
interpretation. 

Q. What does St. Peter say to the faithful 
in his 2d Epistle, chap. i. ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 75 

A. That they should all understand, ""that 
no prophecy of Scripture is made by private in- 
terpretation;" and after denouncing sects and 
heresies and crimes, in order to show that pri- 
vate interpretation is the cause of them, he 
adds, in the last chapter, that certain things in 
St. Paul's Epistles are hard to be understood, 
" which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as 
they do also the other Scriptures* to. their awn 
destruction/' 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. Show us, more at length, why those ivho 
are not Catholics, can have no other than a 
doubting or vacillating faith? 

A. It is, because there are three essential 
points, upon which they have no real certainty. 
In the first place, they have no real certainty as 
to the canon of Scripture ; secondly, they can 
have none as regards their versions or transla- 
tions of Scripture ; and, thirdly, they can never 
be certain that their interpretations are the 
genuine meaning of God's word. 

Q. Why cannot Protestants know, with in- 
fallible certainty, what books of Scripture are 
canonical and divine ? 

A. Because they profess to believe nothing 
but what is expressly laid down in Scripture. 



76 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Now the Scripture does not tell us what books 
are canonical, — that is, what, and how many, 
books are God's divine word ; this is admitted 
even by the most learned Protestants. 

Q. Cannot they know the boohs that are 
divine, by their excelling beauty and thrilling 
expression, as you know honey or sugar by 
their sweetness ? 

A. No ; for if that could be, then all Prot- 
estants would have acknowledged the same 
books as canonical, and yet we know they 
have not agreed upon this point. The first 
Protestants rejected the Epistle to the He- 
brews and the Apocalypse or Revelations, 
whilst the Protestants of the present day re- 
ceive these books as divine, Calvin called 
the Epistle of St. James, an Epistle of gold, 
whilst Luther styled the same, an Epistle of 
straw. 

Q. May they not say, that they know the 
canonical books by their titles ? 

A. If we must receive the Gospel of St. 
Matthew, because it bears his name, we should, 
for the same reason, receive the Gospels of 
St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew, because 
they bear the names of these Apostles, and yet 
all Christians reject these two Gospels as 
Apocryphal. 

Q,. May they not say, that they receive the 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 77 

true books of Scripture on the authority of 
tradition ? 

A. No ; they reject tradition, on every other 
question, as a doubtful source of truth ; hence, 
every doctrine drawn from it must be, for 
them, uncertain. Divine faith, they say, can- 
not rest on tradition as a foundation ; if, there- 
fore, they know what books are divine only 
from tradition, it evidently follows that they do 
not, and cannot, believe these books to be God's 
word with divine faith. 

Q. What happened at Strasbourg in the 
year 1598? 

A. The Protestants expunged from their 
canon of Scripture, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
the Epistle of St. James, and the Apocalypse ; 
and seventy-four years after, they again re- 
placed them. This fact may be seen in their 
old Ritual, in the chapter on doctrine, and in 
the new Ritual, page 7. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That they were all certainly wrong, either 
in expunging or receiving these books ; that if 
they were evidently wrong in a matter of such 
awful importance as is the integrity of the 
Scripture, they can have no certainty that they 
are right in any thing ; that, in fine, their faith 
resting thus, not upon any rational or certain 

foundation, but on the mere whims of men, 

7# 



78 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

cannot be prudently firm, and, by a necessary 
consequence, cannot be divine faith, 



CHAPTER III 

Q. Why have you said, that those who are 
not Catholics, can never be certain that their 
translations from the original Scriptures are 
correct or faithful ? 

A. Because few, if any of them, understand 
the original languages ; so that they are inca- 
pable of judging whether their translations are 
conformable to the originals. 

Q. May they not reply, that they have every 
necessary security from their translators, whose 
knowledge -of Greek and Hebrew was indis- 
putable ? 

A. No ; for these translators have given 
very different and contradictory versions ; and 
how, in this case, are men of ordinary education 
to know which to adopt ? 

Q. What did Zwinglius say of Luther's 
translation of the New Testament ? 

A. He said, that Luther had corrupted the 
Word of God. 

Q. What said Luther of that of Zwinglius 1 

A. He called it the work of fools, asses, and 
Antichrists. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 79 

Q. Did Beza give an opinion on the version 
cf (Ecolampadius, published at Bale ? 

A, Yes ; he declared it impious, and opposed 
to the Spirit of God. The English declared 
the version of Geneva, the worst and the most 
unfaithful that had appeared. 

Q. What does Luther himself avow as re- 
gards translations of Scripture ? 

A. That he had added the word "ONLY" 
to the text of St. Paul, (chap, hi, to the Rom.,) 
for " we account a man to be justified by faith," 
he has, " by faith only." 

Q. How did he justify himself when re- 
proached with this ? (Tom. iii, Edit, de Jena, 
pp. 141, 144.) 

A. " I know well," he says, " that the word 
only is not to be found in the text of St. Paul ; 
but if any Papist plague you on the subject, 
tell him at once, that it was the will of Dr. 
Martin Luther that it should be added ; and 
please to say further, that a Papist and an 
ass are one and the same thing." "lam sorry/' 
says he, in addition, " that I have not added 
other words. This word * only' will remain in 
my New Testament, until all the Papists burst 
themselves with spite." 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That no prudent man can have any con- 
fidence in a Protestant Bible, since he can never 



80 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

be certain that it is properly translated. The 
English versions are of the same stamp with 
the German. (See Disraeli's Curiosities of 
Literature, Edit. 1843, vol. hi, p. 530, et. seq.) 
Hence, Butler (Hudibras) says : 

" Religion spawned a various rout, 
Of petulant, capricious sects, 
The maggots of corrupted texts." 

Q. Can you draw any further inference ? 

A. Yes ; that the faith of Protestants, ground- 
ed as it is on doubtful versions of Scripture, is not 
prudently firm, and, consequently, is not divine. 

Q. But have the Catholics themselves an ab- 
solute certainty as to the number of the sacred 
books, and the truth of the translations from 
them ? t 

A. Yes ; the Catholics are perfectly certain 
as regards both points. The Church points out 
the books that are canonical, and the correct 
versions of these books. Now, a fundamental 
principle of the Catholic religion is, that the 
Church is infallible ; because Christ says — 
" the gates of hell shall not prevail against her ; 
— that He will be with her all days ; — that His 
holy Spirit will teach her all truth for ever." 
Hence, the Catholic grounds his faith on what 
is certainly God's word, and his faith, conse- 
quently, is certainly divine. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 81 



CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Why have you said that Protestants have 
no certainty or security as regards the true 
sense of the Scripture ? 

A. The passages of Scripture which regard 
controverted points, may be tortured into two 
different, and sometimes opposite, meanings ; 
now the Scripture itself does not, and cannot, 
tell us which is the true sense. 

Q. Have not Protestants said, that they are 
individually inspired to understand, in its true 
sense, any passage of Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; but they have said many very 
absurd things. According to this blasphemous 
assertion, it was the Spirit of God who taught 
Luther the real presence, whilst the same spirit 
taught Calvin the figurative presence ; it is God 
who inspires the Church of England to have 
bishops, and the Church of Scotland to reject 
them ; one sect of Protestants to admit good 
works as necessary to salvation, and another 
sect to reject them ; one minister to account 
baptism necessary to salvation, and another to 
repute it as a mere ceremony. Surely, if they 
were inspired, they would all believe the same 
set of doctrines. 

Q. May they not say, that the ambiguous 



82 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

texts are easily explained by those that are 
clear ? 

A. Yes ; they may say any thing ; but it so 
happens, that each flatters himself, that the texts 
which appear to support his peculiar notions 
are abundantly clear. Thus, to prove that 
Christ is not God, the Unitarians think these 
words : "My Father is greater than I;" and 
these other : " That Christ is the first-born of 
creatures" — very clear indeed. The Presby- 
terians, to prove that the Sacrament is only 
bread and wine, think these words : " Thefiesh 
profiteth nothing, the words which I speak to 
you are spirit and life," the clearest portion of 
Scripture ; as if any Christian in his senses 
could believe, that the flesh of Christ, by which, 
in union with the Divinity, the world was re- 
deemed, profited nothing. The Anabaptists, to 
prove that infants should not be baptized, bring 
forward, what they imagine is very clear, these 
words : " Teach all nations, baptizing them :" 
and, " he who believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." 

Q. Do other Christians think these clear 
also ? 

A. Yes ; some think them very clear in 
proving the opposite doctrines, and others think 
them the most obscure passages in the Inspired 
Volume. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 83 

Q. Do these sects quote other texts to prove 
their peculiar notions ? 

A. Yes ; they will quote texts, by the dozen, 
to prove any doctrine you please. It is quite 
clear to the Free Kirk of Scotland, from Scrip- 
ture, that the Established Kirk is Antichrist ; 
and to the latter, the Scripture as clearly proves 
the Free Church to be schismatical. To some, 
Joanna Southcote was the mother of the Mes- 
siah ; to some of the followers of Wesley, the 
greatest crimes are only spots upon God's chil- 
dren; whilst to the Muckers of Prussia, immo- 
rality is virtue. 

Q. What inference would you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That a wise God must have left in his 
Church some judge perfectly qualified to decide, 
authoritatively, on all religious disputes, and to 
point out, with certainty, the true sense of the 
Inspired Volume. 

Q,. Enforce this truth by a comparison. 

A. As a legal process could never be termi- 
nated, if the counsel were allowed to appeal 
merely to the book containing the law, so 
religious disputes can never be settled by an 
appeal merely to the Scriptures ; and as a law- 
fully commissioned judge is necessary for the 
settlement of civil matters, so is a divinely 
appointed judge necessary for the decision of 



84 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the more difficult and more important matter 
of religion. 

Q. Who is that judge ? 

A The teaching body of the Church of 
Christ, whom he sent to preach his Gospel to 
all nations, and to whom he promised the con- 
tinued guidance of his Spirit, even to the end 
of time. 

Q. What do you understand here by the 
teaching body of the Church ? 

A. I understand, not the Pope alone, nor the 
bishops alone, either severally or collectively, 
but the Pope, with the bishops as a body ; and 
not every or any body calling himself bishop, 
but those only who are in communion with the 
See of Rome. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. What are the qualities of the Catholic 
rule of faith ? 

A. The Catholic rule is universal, certain, 
and clear or easy. 

Q. Why universal ? 

A. It is a rule for all, the learned as well 
as the ignorant ; it relieves the former of all 
doubt and uncertainty, and spares the latter the 
trouble of a difficult inquiry and examination, 
for which they are in no way qualified. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 85 



Q. Why do you say it is certain ? 

A. Because it is no other than the Word of 
God, explained by God's appointed organs, in 
the very sense intended by the holy Spirit, and 
of course God can neither deceive nor be de- 
ceived. 

Q. Why do you say it is clear ? 

A. Because it tells clearly, in what sense all 
ambiguous portions of God's Word are to be 
understood. 

Q. What are the peculiar advantages of the 
Catholic rule of faith ? 

A. In the first place, it banishes all doubt ; 
secondly, it decides finally every dispute; third- 
ly, it preserves unity. When an infallible judge 
decides, there can be no room for doubt or 
division. 

Q. What say you of those who would ex- 
amine, personally, every controversial point, 
and abide by what, they in their wisdom think, 
the Scripture teaches ? 

A. That they adopt a rule which, for the 
great mass of mankind, is an impossibility ; be- 
cause, to form a proper judgment from the 
Scripture on any controverted point, one should 
know, in the first place, all the texts of Scripture 
that are for or against such point; secondly, 
it would be necessary to compare these texts, 
one with the other, to weigh their respective 

8 



86 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

force, to illustrate the obscure by others more 
clear ; thirdly, to be absolutely certain, that all 
of them are understood in their true sense and 
no other. Now, this is evidently a business far 
beyond the reach, at all events, of the ignorant, 
who form the great mass of mankind. 

Q. But may not the learned aid the ignorant 
in this inquiry ? 

A. Such is the absurdity to which error 
always reduces its votaries. You refuse to sub- 
mit to the decision of the whole Church — to the 
decision of all the learned, pious, and enlight- 
ened prelates of the Church, with the sovereign 
Pontiff at their head, men of all others the best 
qualified to judge of religious matters ; you re- 
ject their opinion, whilst you would blindly follow 
the crude notions of one layman pretending to 
learning, of one Calvinistic or Lutheran min- 
ister, for the truth of whose opinions you have 
no securitv whatever. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Q. Has tradition any connection with the 
rule of faith ? 

A. Yes ; because it is a part of God's re- 
vealed word, properly called the unwritten word, 
as the Scripture is called the written word. 

Q. What is tradition ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 87 

A. The doctrines which the Apostles taught 
by word of mouth, and which have descended 
through every successive generation even to 
our times. 

Q. Are we obliged to believe what tradition 
teaches, equally with what is taught by Scrip- 
ture ? 

A. Yes ; we are obliged to believe the one 
as firmly as the other ; because, what the Apos- 
tles preached is as true as what they wrote : 
it was the same holy Spirit who spoke by their 
mouths and by their pen. 

Q. Repeat the words of St. Paul. 2d Thess., 
chap, ii, ver. 14. 

A. " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and 
hold the traditions which you have learned, 
whether by word or by our Epistle." (See 
also 2d Thess. iii, 6; 1st Corinth, xi, 2; 2d 
Tim. ii, 3.) 

Q. Do the Protestants believe many things 
not clearly laid down in Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; they believe many things essen- 
tially necessary to salvation, which are not 
contained in Scripture. 

Q. Mention a few of them. 

A. The Scripture does not anywhere say, 
that all the books composing itself are the Word 
of God ; — it cannot tell us, whether our copies 
of it are correct; — whether our translations 



88 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

from these are faithful ; — whether the books of 
Scripture that are lost are a necessary part of 
the rule of faith ; — it does not tell us whether 
infants should be baptized ; — whether the obli- 
gation of keeping Saturday holy has been done 
away with ; — whether Sunday should be kept 
in its place, or at what hour the day of rest 
should commence and terminate ; all these, and 
twenty-four other necessary points, are not 
clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume. 

Q. What says St Epiphanius on this sub- 
ject, 91 Heresy? 

A. That every necessary thing is not to be 
found in the Scripture ; for the doctrines of the 
Apostles were not all committed to writing, — > 
many of them, delivered by w r ord of mouth, 
were handed down by tradition ; indeed, many 
of the Apostles wrote nothing. 



DO WE FIND THAT PROTESTANTS REALLY 
ADHERE TO THE SCRIPTURE AS THEIR ONLY 
RULE OF FAITH? 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. What is the doctrine of Protestants re- 
garding the commandments of God ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 89 

A. They teach that it is impossible to keep 
them. " No mere man," say they, " since the 
fall, is able perfectly to keep the commandrnents 
of God." 

Q. What says our Saviour on this subject, 
in the 11 th chapter of St. Matthew? 

A. " My yoke is sweet, and my burden is 
light. 93 

Q. What says the Gospel of St. Luke, chap, 
i, ver. 6, speaking of Zachary and Elisabeth ? 

A. " And they were both just before God, 
walking in ALL the commandments and justi- 
fications of the Lord, without blame/' St. 
John, in his first Epistle, chap, v, ver. 3, says : 
" For this is the charity of God, that we keep his 
commandments, and his commandments are not 
heavy." In Deut. chap, xxx, we have : "This 
commandment that I command thee this day, 
is not above thee,. . . .but in thy mouth and in 
thy heart that thou mayesi do it" 

Q. Could a wise God give to his children 
commandments that he knew they were unable 
to observe ? 

A. Certainly not ; for even a master, who 
would order his slave to carry a burden beyond 
his strength, would be reputed a fool. Besides, 
did not the young man in the Scriptures tell 
Christ himself, that he had kept all the com- 
mandments from his vouth ? and Christ, who 

8* 



90 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

knew his heart, did not contradict him, but 
urged him to other and greater works of love. 

Q. Do you find from these passages, that the 
law of God cannot be observed ? 

A. No ; I find quite the contrary. Prot- 
estants, therefore, follow any thing or every thing 
but Scripture in this matter ; their empty boast- 
ing about what they call their Scriptural re- 
ligion, is only a grossly fraudulent means to 
conceal their errors — to catch the simple and 
ignorant — and to throw the more learned off 
their guard. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What is the doctrine of Protestants on 
the subject of faith ? 

A. They teach that faith alone justifies the 
sinner. 

Q. What does St. James say ? Chap, ii, 
ver. 17, and following. 

A. " So faith also, if it have not works, is 
dead in itself, . • . . even the devils also believe 
and tremble." " Was not Abraham our father 
Justified by works, offering up Isaac his son up- 
on the altar ?" " Do you see that man is justi- 
fied by works, and not by faith only" St. 
Paul, 1 Corinth, chap, xiii, says : " And if I 
should have all faith, so that I could remove 
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 91 

Our Saviour addresses Magdalen thus : " Many- 
sins are forgiven thee, because thou hast loved 
much/' 

Q. What do these texts clearly prove ? 

A. That the Protestant doctrine is false, — 
that their creed is in direct opposition to their 
own boasted rule of faith. 

Q. What is the Protestant doctrine touching 
good works ? 

A. They teach that good works are not at 
all necessary to salvation. 

Q. What does our Saviour teach on the same 
subject? Matt, x, 17. 

A. That we cannot enter into heaven with- 
out good works : — " If you would enter into 
life, keep the commandments." St. James, 
chap, ii, 17, says : — " So faith, if it have not 
works, is dead in itself." St. Paul teaches, 
Rom. chap, ii, ver. 13, that "not the hearers 
of the law are just before God, but the doers 
of the law shall he justified." In 2 Peter, chap, 
i, 10, we are told : " Wherefore, brethren, labor 
the more, that by good works you make sure 
your calling and election." Jesus Christ him- 
self says — Matt. chap, vii, 21 : — "Not every 
one that sayeth to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth 
the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." 



92 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What is the reason to be given by Christ 
on the last day, why he shall pronounce the sen- 
tence of eternal exile on many of the wicked — 
is it only that they had no faith ? 

A. No ; it is that they had no charity. 
Matth. xxv, 41 : " Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire,. . . .for I was hungry, and 
you gave me not to eat ; I was thirsty, and you 
gave me not to drink ; I was a stranger, and 
you took me not in ; naked, and you covered me 
not; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.' 3 

Q. What think you now ? Is the Protestant 
doctrine on good works in accordance with 
Scripture ? 

A. No, certainly ; on the contrary, it seems 
invented to set Scripture and reason at de- 
fiance. It is evidently opposed both to the spirit 
and the letter of the Word of God. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What is the Protestant doctrine on as- 
surance, or the certainty of grace ? 

A. They pretend, that the moment we be- 
lieve in Jesus Christ, we are infallibly assured 
of God's grace. 

Q. What are we taught in Eccles. chap, ix, 
ver. 1 and 12? 

A. " Their just men," says that inspired booh* 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 93 

"and wise men, and their works, are in the 
hand of God, and yet man knoweth not whether 
he be worthy of love or hatred, but all things 
are kept uncertain for the time to come ; • . . . 
man knoweth not his own end." Solomon, in the 
20th chap, of Proverbs, ver. 9, asks : " Who can 
say : my heart is clean, I am pure from sin V s 
St. Paul to the Phil, chap, ii, 12—" Wherefore, 
my dearly beloved, .... with fear and trembling 
work out your salvation;" and again to the 
Corinthians, chap, iv, 4 — " For I am not con- 
scious to myself of any thing, yet I am not 
hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is 
the Lord." 

Q. Do these texts prove the falsehood of the 
Protestant doctrine in question ? 

A, Very clearly indeed. They show it to 
be as unscriptural as it is presumptuous. 

Q. But do Catholics believe that we should 
always remain in a state of doubt, as to whether 
we are in a state of grace ? 

A. Catholics hold, that those who fear God 
may have, not the certainty of faith, as Prot- 
estants teach, but a moral certainty that they 
are in possession of God's grace ; but nothing 
except a revelation from God, who knows the 
heart, can give us an absolute certainty. 

Q. What is the Protestant doctrine on the 
subject of penitential works ? 



94 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Protestants pretend, that Jesus Christ has 
so satisfied for our sins, that, on our part, fast- 
ing and other works of penance are entirely 
useless. 

Q. Is it wonderful that Protestantism should 
have some professors, since it teaches such a 
convenient doctrnne ? 

A. Not at all ; since such doctrine opens a 
wide, easy, and flowery path to heaven for un- 
repenting and vicious Christians. According 
to this, they may serve the devil and serve God 
at one and the same time. 

Q. Does the Scripture teach this doctrine, so 
flattering to the passions ? 

A. No, certainly ; the Prophet Joel, chap, ii, 
12, says : " Now, therefore, be converted to 
me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weep- 
ing, and in mourning" St. John the Baptist, 
Matth. iii, 8, adds : " Bring forth, therefore, 
worthy fruits of penance. " In St. Luke, chap, 
xiii, 3, our Saviour says : " Unless you do penance, 
you shall all equally perish." In the 12th chap., 
he says to those who brought not forth worthy 
fruits of penance : " Wo to thee, Corozain ; wo 
to thee, Bethsaida ; for if in Tyre and Sidon 
had been wrought the miracles that have been 
wrought in you, they had long ago done penance 
in sackcloth and ashes" He tells us elsewhere, 
that unless we take up our cross, and follow 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 95 

hirn, we cannot be his disciples. St. Paul, 
1 Corinth, chap, ix, 27, says : " I chastise my 
body and bring it into subjection." And again 
we are told : " If we live by the flesh we shall 
die, but if, by the spirit, we mortify the deeds 
of the flesh, we shall live/' 

Q. Do you find, by the perusal of these pas- 
sages, that, according to Scripture, Christ has 
so satisfied for us, that we may safely dispense 
with all crosses, sufferings, mortifications, and 
works of penance ? 

A. No ; the very reverse is so evident, that 
a man must be either very ignorant, or blind 
with prejudice, not to see it. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. What do Protestants teach as regards 
the Church? 

A. That she fell into gross errors, and cor- 
rupted the purity of the Gospel doctrine of 
Christ. 

Q. Is this clearly in opposition to Scrip- 
ture ? 

A. Yes ; because the Gospel tells us, (Matth. 
xviii, 17,) that the Church can never fall into 
error : " Upon this rock I will build my Church, 
and the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
it." A rock is its foundation, Christ its builder, 



96 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

and his power its prop and support. " He that 
will not hear the Church," says Christ, " is to be 
reputed as a heathen and a publican." " I will 
be with you," says Christ again, to his Apostles 
and their successors, "all days (that is, each 
and every day) to the end of the world." In 
fine, St. Paul calls the Church the pillar and 
ground of truth. 1 Tim. hi, 15. 

Q. What do Protestants teach of the 
Church ? 

A. They teach that she was invisible during 
more than a thousand years, pretending that 
there were always men who held their faith 
secretly, but that they dared not profess it out- 
wardly. 

Q. Could such a pusillanimous and coward- 
ly body as this be the Church of Christ ? 

A. No ; for the people of Christ must not 
only believe with the heart, but openly profess 
with the tongue. Rom. x, 10 — " For with the 
heart we believe unto justice, but with the 
mouth confession is made unto salvation." 

Q. To what does Christ compare the 
Church ? Matth. xviii, 17. 

A. To a city on the top of a mountain, visi- 
ble to all the eyes in the world. 

Q. What do you conclude from these words, 
(Matth. xviii, 17 :) "If he will not hear them, 
tell the Church ?" 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 97 

A. That the Church must have been always 
visible, otherwise there must have been a time 
during which this command of Christ was im- 
possible on account of the invisibility of the 
Church ; for no one could lay his complaint 
before an invisible Church. Hence the Catho- 
lic is the true Church, since she is the only 
Church that has been always visible. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. What do Protestants teach on the sub- 
ject of the Scripture ? 

A. They pretend that the Sacred Volume is 
so clear, that every one, learned and ignorant, 
may easily know its meaning. 

Q. Does St. Peter think with Protestants 
in this matter ? 

A. No, indeed. In his 2d Epist., chap, iii, 
16, he says, that there are some things in the 
Epistles of St. Paul that are hard to be under- 
stood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, 
as also the other Scriptures, to their own de- 
struction. 

u Q. Do Protestants teach any other absurdity 
on the subject of the Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; they try to persuade their followers, 
that the Scripture contains all God's revealed 
will, and that nothing is to be believed or prac- 

9 



98 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

tised but what is expressly laid down in that 
Divine Book. 

Q. Is this doctrine in accordance with the 
Scripture itself? 

A No ; it is directly opposed to the words 
of St. Paul,— 2 Thess. ii, 14 : " Therefore, 
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
which you have been taught, whether by word 
or our Epistle." 

Q. What do Protestants teach on the Eu- 
charist ? 

A. It is not an easy matter to answer this 
question ; for to these four words, this is my 
body, each Protestant gives his own peculiar 
meaning. Some sav that the bodv of Christ is 
in the bread ; some, that it is under the bread ; 
some, that it is with the bread ; some, that it 
has no connection with the bread, but that you 
receive the body when you eat the bread ; and 
some, in fine, say, that the body of Christ is not 
present in any sense whatever, — that the whole 
affair is a bare memorial. 

Q. Are Protestants Scriptural in this mat- 
ter ? 

A. No ; they teach the very reverse of 
Scripture. Christ says — "this is my body;" 
they say — "it is not his body." 

Q. How many distinct passages of Scripture 
are there to prove the real presence ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 99 

A. Fourteen, — all contained in the following 
texts : Matth. xvi, 26, 28 ; Mark, xiv, 22, 24 : 
Luke, xxii, 19, 20 ; 1 Corinth, xi, 23, 25 ; John, 
vi, 51, 60, 66; 1 Corinth, x, 16 ; 1 Corinth, xi, 
27, 29. 

Q. Is there one text of Scripture which de- 
clares the Eucharist to be mere bread and mere 
wine ? 

A. No, not so much as one ; and hence the 
faith of Protestants on this subject is not only 
not scriptural, but antiscriptural. 

Q. What say Protestants of Confession ? 

A. That it is an unscriptural, popish, practice. 

Q. Is it then unscriptural 1 

A. No ; the very reverse. St. James, chap, 
v, 6, says, " Confess your sins one to another. 39 
The first Christians, under the direction of the 
Apostles themselves, practised confession, — 
Acts, chap, xix, 18, 19, — "And many that be- 
lieved came and confessed, and showed their 
deeds." See also Num. chap, v, 6, 7, 8 ; 
Levit. xii, 15 ; Matth. hi, 5, 6. 

Q. But why confess sin at all ? 

A. That, according to the law of Christ, 
those who are penitent may be absolved by the 
Priests of Christ's Church, lawfully sent and 
ordained. 

Q. Do we find in Scripture that any such 
power was given to the Priests of the Church 1 



100 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Yes ; we have for this the clearest texts 
of the Inspired Volume. In John, xx, 21, Christ 
says to his first chosen Pastors — " as my Father 
has sent me, even so I send you ;" and in chap, 
xvii, 18, of same Gospel — "as thou hast sent 
me into the world, even so I have also sent them 
into the world." But Christ was sent into the 
world with power to forgive sins, therefore, as 
he communicated to his first pastors the same 
power he. had himself, they also had power 
to forgive sins ; indeed, he expressly declares 
it, — John, xx, 21, 22, 23: "Whose sins you 
shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and 
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." 
And elsewhere, he says : " Whatsoever you 
shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; 
and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall 
be loosed in heaven." 

Q. Are Protestant doctrines equally un- 
scriptural as regards the other Sacraments ? 

A. Yes ; their doctrines are all antiscriptural 
as regards these. On Extreme Unction, see 
James, chap, v, 14 ; on Holy Orders, read 1 
Tim. iv, 14 — 2 Tim. i, 6 — Acts vi, 6, and xiv, 
23 ; on Matrimony, see Ephes. v, 24, 25, 32. 

Q. When you read these passages, do you 
find that Protestants teach Scriptural doc- 
trines ? 

A. No ; they evidently teach the very con- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 101 

trary. Their empty vauntings about Scripture, 
are only calculated to blind the ignorant and 
mislead the unwary. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Q. Have you any other proofs that they are 
not guided by the Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; so many, that we cannot admit 
more than a mere specimen into this small 
work. They reject much that is clearly con- 
tained in Scripture, and profess more that is 
nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book. 

Q. Give some examples of both ? 

A. They should, if the Scripture were their 
only rule, wash the feet of one another, accord- 
ing to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap, 
of St. John ; — they should keep, not the Sun- 
day, but the Saturday, according to the com- 
mandment, "Remember thou keep holy the 
SABBATH-day ;" for this commandment has 
not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated ; 
— they should receive, what they call the sacra- 
ment, after supper, and not in the morning, be- 
cause Christ instituted that sacrament at night, 
and his Apostles received it after supper ; — they 
should not eat blood or strangled meat, because 
the Apostles forbid it in the 15th chap, of the 
Acts > — they should not baptize infants, as there 

9* 



102 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

is no example in Scripture to justify such a 
practice. 

Q. What inference would you draw from all 
this ? 

A, That Protestants ought rather to call 
themselves Anti-Evangelicals, than Evangeli- 
cals, as their doctrines are opposed to, rather 
than in conformity with, the Gospel. 



OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. How many natures are there in Jesus 
Christ ? 

A. Two — the Divine and human natures; 
for Jesus Christ is true God and true man. 

Q. How many persons are there in Jesus 
Christ ? 

A. Only one ; he is a Divine and not a hu- 
man person, although he has a human nature. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That all the works of Jesus Christ are 
divine, infinite in value ; because, the more ex- 
cellent the person, the more valuable are his 
works : hence, the works of the divine person 
of Jesus Christ must be infinite in merit. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 103 

Q. Was it his Divinity or his humanity 
that suffered for us ? 

A. It was his humanity that fasted, prayed, 
and suffered for us ; still we are right in saying 
it was God who suffered, because his sufferings 
and works must be attributed to the person, 
and the person of Jesus Christ is God. 

Q. Where is Jesus Christ ? 

A. As he is a Divine person, he is every- 
where ; but his humanity is only in heaven, 
and on the altar in the holy sacrament. Nor 
can it be said, that, as his Divinity is every- 
where, so is his humanity, for that does not 
follow. 

Q. Show us, by an example, how it does not 
follow. 

A. Man's head is intimately connected with 
his soul ; yet it is not in every place where the 
soul is, otherwise the head would be in the feet 
also. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What do we owe to Jesus Christ ? 

A. We owe him a sovereign confidence, love, 
and worship. 

Q. What worship is due to him ? 

A. That sovereign worship or adoration 
which is due to God, and to God only. 

Q. Do Catholics adore the saints ? 



104 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

\ A. God forbid that we should give to any, or 
all of the saints the worship which is due to 
God ; we honor the saints as God's servants, 
enriched and honored with his divine grace. 

Q. Do not Catholics consecrate altars, and 
offer upon them the sacrifice of the Mass to the 
saints ? 

A. No ; altars are erected and consecrated 
to God alone ; to God alone is the sacrifice of 
the Mass offered ; the former under the invoca- 
tion of the saints, and the latter in memory of 
the saints. 

Q. Why do we owe to Jesus Christ a sovereign 
confidence ? 

A. Because He is the only mediator, in the 
proper sense of the word, between God and 
Man. 

Q. Why do you say he is the only mediator ? 

A. Because He alone could and did satisfy 
for sin ; — He alone merited for us all the graces 
we receive from God. 

Q. Could not a saint satisfy for the sins of 
men? 

A. No ; all the angels and saints that ever 
were, or ever will be, could not have satisfied 
the justice of God for even one mortal sin ; be- 
cause, by sin, an Infinite Being was offended ; 
His justice required infinite satisfaction. Now, 
this could not be given by any number or 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 105 

quality of saints or angels, who are, and must 
essentially be, finite creatures ; but Christ, be- 
ing a Divine person, could easily offer sufficient, 
because infinite satisfaction, by restoring to God 
the glory of which sin had deprived him. 

Q. Has Jesus Christ merited for us all 
heavenly graces ? 

A. Yes ; " Blessed be the God and the Fa- 
ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed 
us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in 
Christ." (Ephes. chap, i.) 

Q. Do the saints merit graces for us ? 

A. They may, by their prayers, obtain graces 
for us from God, but they cannot, of themselves, 
merit them. It was Christ alone, who could, 
and did, merit and purchase them with the 
price of his blood, both for the saints and for us. 

Q. Why do you say we owe to Jesus Christ 
a sovereign love ? 

A. Because it was He " Who delivered us 
from the power of darkness, and translated us 
into the kingdom of the Son of his love." 
(Coloss. chap, i.) 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. Do Catholics glorify Christ and his 
merits more than Protestants ? 

A. Yes ; much more. They worship him 



106 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

more frequently and more intensely ; — they 
glorify him in his saints, and in the pictures 
and images of him, which they keep with re- 
spect and veneration. 

Q. Why do you say that Catholics worship 
Christ in his person, more than Protestants ? 

A. Because the worship which Catholics 
render to the person of Christ, present in the 
sacrament and sacrifice of the altar, shows it 
sufficiently. In conformity with their creed, 
they render to Christ, really present, all the 
adoration in their power. 

Q. Why have you said that Catholics hqnor 
Christ } in his saints, more than Protestants 
do? 

A. Because Catholics, in honoring the saints, 
only glorify Jesus, who, by his mercies and 
graces, has made these saints what they are, 
worthy of our veneration and imitation ; and, 
as often as Catholics show respect or veneration 
before a picture or image of Jesus, they uni- 
formly refer both, not to the mere matter before 
them, but to the prototype, Jesus Christ him- 
self. 

Q. Why do you say that Catholics honor 
the merits of Christ more than Protestants ? 

A. Because Catholics think more of his suf- 
ferings and passion than their adversaries. 
Catholics observe Lent, a fast of forty days, in 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 107 

honor of his fasting and sorrows ; — they abstain 
from the luxury of flesh meat on Friday, in 
honor of his death ; — they make frequent use 
of the sign of the cross, to keep them in mind 
of the tortures he endured for sinners, and that 
it is from the merits of his passion and death 
on the cross, that they hope for heavenly 
strength and grace ; — they end every prayer 
by these words : " Through Jesus Christ our 
Lord ;" — and the last name they utter when 
they are dying, is his holy name : — Jesus, there- 
fore, is the only hope of every Catholic ; and 
those of our adversaries who say otherwise, are 
guilty of the very extreme of injustice ; since 
all we ask the saints to do, is to pray for us to 
our Divine Saviour. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Do not Catholics abandon God, and put 
their trust in the saints, when they ask the 
prayers of the saints ? 

A. No certainly ; not so much as Protestants 
do, when they ask the prayers of sinful men. 

Q. Is it not derogatory to the merits of 
Christ to invoke the saints ? 

A. Certainly not ; since the Scripture de- 
clares, that the prayer even of the just man 
availeth much. 



108 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. In what are Protestants deceived on this 
subject ? 

A. In supposing that Catholics substitute the 
saints for Christ, and place their hope in the 
former and not in the latter. This is a very- 
mistaken notion. Catholics do not ask grace 
from the saints ; they merely ask the saints to 
pray that God may grant them all necessary 
graces through Christ. They say, when ad- 
dressing God : " Have mercy on us ;" " Forgive 
our sins ;" — but when addressing the Blessed 
Virgin or the saints : " Pray for us." Catho- 
lics know well, that all the virtues, merits, and 
graces of the saints are derived, not from them- 
selves, but from Jesus Christ. 

Q. Are the merits of the saints then useless 
to us ? 

A. No ; the more agreeable the saints are to 
God, the more powerful will their intercession 
be in our favor ; consequently, the more mer- 
itoriously they have co-operated with God's 
grace, the more useful will their prayers be to 
us ; in the same manner that we value more 
the prayers of the man that is truly just, than 
we do those of him who is imperfectly so. 

Q. In whose place do we put the saints ? 

A. Not in the place of Jesus Christ but in 
our own ; we conjure them to join with us in 
fervent prayer to God, that, through Jesus 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 109 

Christ, we may obtain all the graces we stand 
in need of. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Does the sacred Scripture order us to 
invoke the saints ? 

A. It neither expressly orders, nor forbids it. 

Q. Is it not said in the 49th Psalm ? — "Call 
upon me in the day of tribulation ;" and in the 
11th chap, of St. Matthew ? — "Come to me all 
you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
refresh you." And are not these clear com- 
mands to invoke God alone ? 

A. As these passages do not forbid us to ask 
the prayers of men, so neither do they forbid 
us to ask the intercession of the saints. 

Q. What then does God demand in these 
passages ? 

A. He demands that we invoke him, and 
him only, as our sovereign Lord, from whom 
both the saints and we must draw all help and 
consolation. 

Q. Is it useful to ask the prayers of the saints ? 

A. Yes, surely most useful, if it be at all use- 
ful to have recourse to the prayers even of men. 

Q. How do you know that it is useful to have 
recourse to the prayers of men ? 

A. In the first place, all sects admit this; 
and, secondly, God himself orders the friends 

10 



110 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

of Job to have recourse to Job's prayers, (chap, 
xlii :) " Go to my servant Job, .... and my ser- 
vant Job shall pray for you ; his face I will 
accept, that folly be not imputed to you." 

Q. Do the angels and saints hear us when 
we ask their prayers ? 

A. Protestants admit, that even the devils 
know what is passing on earth ; and yet they 
deny this knowledge to the blessed and perfect 
angels and saints of God. In Matth. xv, we 
are told, that " there is joy over one sinner that 
doeth penance, more than over ninety-nine 
just persons." If the saints and angels can see 
in this world even the penitent heart, they 
surely hear our prayers without any difficulty. 
In Luke, chap, xvi, Abraham, who, according 
to Protestants, must have been in heaven, 
heard the supplications of Dives, or the rich 
man, who was certainly in hell See also 
Zachary, chap, i, 12. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Q. Is the practice of invoking the saints of 
very ancient date ? 

A. Yes ; even the Protestant Centuriators 
of Magdebourg admit, that it has existed since 
the third century, at which time all agree that 
the Church was pure. " You may trace," say 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. Ill 

they, " manifest vestiges of the invocation of 
saints in the third century ;- — thus Origin says : 
"Holy Job, pray for us:"' The Protestants 
who drew up the Augsburg and Helvetic Con- 
fession, define it as sound Protestant doctrine, 
" that relative and inferior veneration is due to 
the saints and angels." To the same effect the 
testimony of all the early Fathers, and even of 
nearly all the most learned Protestant bishops, 
along with Kemnitius, and Luther himself, who 
says : " I therefore, with the whole Catholic 
Church, hold that the saints are to be honored 
and invocated by us." 

Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 

A. That the invocation of the saints, angels, 
and blessed Virgin, is a good and salutary prac- 
tice, seeing that it has been adopted in every 
age of the Church ; that it has been taught and 
practised by the wise, the learned, and the good ; 
and that the most learned, though bitterest, ene- 
mies have been compelled to admit its utility. 



COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Is it necessary to receive the sacrament 
of the Eucharist under both kinds ? 



112 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. No ; it is not, for three reasons ; first, 
because what is received under both kinds is 
received under one kind only ; secondly, be- 
cause Christ has promised the same reward 
to the reception of one as to the reception of 
both ; thirdly, because the ancient Church ad- 
ministered this sacrament often under one kind 
only. 

Q. Why do you say thai the same is received 
under one, as under both species ? 

A. Because Christ is received as he is, living 
and immortal, whole and entire ; and, as a 
living body is not without blood, or living blood 
without a body, so Christ is received, as he is, 
under either the form of bread or the form of 
wine. 

Q. Does the priest, who receives under both, 
receive more than the Laic ? 

A. No ; he receives the same ; for, as a man 
receiving two hosts would not receive more 
than he who receives only one, so the recep- 
tion of one species is equal to the reception of 
both — Christ whole and entire being received 
in either case, 

Q. Why do priests alone partake of the 
chalice — have they more right to it than the 
people ? 

A. They alone partake of it in Mass, because 
it is part of the sacrifice ; but priests, bishops, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 113 

and even the Pope, receive under one kind 
only, when they receive out of Mass. 

Q. Why do you say that the chalice forms 
vart of the sacrifice ? 

A. Because Christ is a priest, according to 
the order of Melchizedeck ; now Melchizedeck 
offered bread and wine both; hence, Christ has 
been pleased to institute the sacrifice of his 
body and blood, under the forms of bread and 
of wine. 

CHAPTER IL 

Q. Why do you say that Christ promises 
the same reward to the reception of one as to 
the reception of both kinds ? 

A. Because this is clearly laid down in the 
sixth chap, of St. John, ver. 50 — " This is the 
bread which cometh down from heaven, that if 
any man eat of it he may not die." 52 — " If any 
man eat of this bread he shall live for ever" 
58 — " As I live by the Father, so he that eat- 
eth me, the same shall live by me." 59 — " Not 
as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he 
that eateth this bread shall live for ever." 

Q. What do you observe on these passages? 

A. That Christ promised eternal life to those 
who receive under one kind, as well as to those 
who receive under both. Indeed, Christ him- 
self administered the sacrament under one kind 

10* 



114 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

only to the disciples at Emraaus : — " And it 
came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, 
he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave 
to them." St Paul, 1 Cor. chap, xi, 27, says : 
" Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or 
drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall 
be guilty of the body and of the blood of the 
Lord." This shows clearly, that the unworthy 
reception of either kind is enough to damn, and 
•consequently, also, -the worthy reception, enough 
to save ; because, both the body and blood 
of. the Lord are profaned, or advantageously 
received, under either kind, as is evident from 
the conjunctive particle and, in the latter part 
of the verse, whilst the disjunctive or is used 
in the former. From the account of the Last 
Supper given by St. Luke, chap, xxii, 20, it 
would ^appear that the cup was not a necessary, 
even of the Apostolic communion, for it is given 
not during the supper, but after the supper. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. Why have you said that the ancient and 
pure church administered the sacrament often 
under one kind only ? 

JL Because history proves it to be the fact, 
Nicephorus, Hist, Eccles. lib. iii, cap. 7, St, 
Cyprian, and St. Basil> all allude to the practice. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 115 

The latter says, that the solitaries who lived 
far from towns, were in the habit of carrying 
with them, for the whole year, the Holy Eu- 
charist, under the form of bread. 

Q. Did not Pope Gelasius command all 
Catholics to receive the chalice ? 

A. Yes ; but this was only for a time, and 
for the purpose of detecting the Manichean 
heretics, who considered wine as the creature 
of the devil. These heretics mingled with the 
Catholics, and, concealing their heretical prin- 
ciples, approached to communion with them. 
Hence, the Pope ordered the chalice also to 
be administered, knowing that this being under 
the form of w r ine, would deter these heretics 
from profaning the sacrament. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A That the sacrament must have been pre- 
viously administered under the form of bread, 
otherwise this order of Pope Gelasius would 
have been unnecessary. 

Q. How was the sacrament given to the sick, 
to the young, and to infants ? 

A. Under the form of bread only in the two 
former cases, and under the form of wine in 
the latter ; and the Greek Church, during Lent, 
was in the habit of consecrating on Sunday 
what should be necessary for the whole week, 
and under the form of bread only. 



116 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

« . — _, — — — — — — — 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Has not Christ expressly said, Matth. 
xxvi, 27 : " Drink ye all of this ?" 

A. Yes ; but these words were addressed to 
the Apostles alone, and not to all the faithful. 

Q. But if the command to drink was here 
given only to the Apostles, may we not justly 
conclude that the command to eat also, was 
given only to the Apostles ? 

A. The commands to eat and to drink were, 
on this occasion, both given only to the Apos- 
tles and their successors, — that is to say, to the 
bishops and priests of the Church. 

Q. How do you prove this ? 

A. The command to eat and to drink was 
given on this occasion only to those to whom 
it was said — "do this in remembrance of me ;" 
but these latter words were addressed only to 
the Apostles and their lawful successors in the 
ministry ; because, by these last words, Christ 
conferred on his ministers the power to conse- 
crate and administer the Eucharist ; and it is 
quite apparent, that this power was given to 
the Apostles only, and not to mankind in gen- 
eral, who have never even claimed it. 

Q. Is there then no command in this pas- 
sage, that the laity should receive the Eu- 
charist ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 117 

A. Yes ; the priests are ordered to distribute 
it by these words : " Do this in remembrance 
of me ;" and consequently, the laity are com- 
manded to receive it. 

Q. At what precise moment did Christ utter 
these words : " Do this in remembrance of 
me r 

A. Exactly after he had given the Eucharist, 
under the appearance of bread, to the Apostles ; 
not after he had delivered the chalice to them. 
(Luke, chap, xxii, 19.) 

Q. What may be learned from this circum- 
stance ? 

A. That Christ commanded his Apostles and 
their successors to administer the sacrament 
under the form of bread to the laity, but that 
he gave no such command as regards the 
chalice. 

Q. But does not Christ say, in St. John, 
chap, vii, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
of man and drink his blood, ye cannot have 
life in you ?" 

A. True ; but we receive Christ not dead, 
but alive and immortal, as he is now in heaven ; 
hence, we most certainly receive under either 
kind both his body and blood, for where his 
body is, there is his blood, soul, and divinity 
also. Besides, Protestants have nothing to do 
with this text on the present question, since 



118 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

they hold, that not only this text, but the whole 
chapter in which it is found, regard, not the 
sacrament of the Eucharist, but mere faith in 
Jesus Christ. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. What would you say, in addition to the 
above, to an obstinate Protestant who would 
tell you, that every thing done by Christ at the 
Last Supper should continue to be practised, 
and hence, that all should receive under both 
kinds, because he administered it to all then 
present ? 

A. I would tell him : Protestants, in that 
case, have much to do that they neglect. 

Q. What should they do, if all that Christ 
did, be essentially necessary ? 

A. They should wash the feet of all that are 
admitted to the sacrament ; — they should break 
the bread ; — they should make the chalice or 
cup pass from hand to hand ; — they should re- 
ceive the sacrament after supper, and only 
twelve should sit at the same table. 

Q. What if Protestants reply, that these are 
not essential to the reception of the sacrament ? 

A. That is just what we say with regard to 
the reception of both kinds. 

Q. Are not both kinds essential to the 
sacrament ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. Ill 



A. If they were, Christ would not have 
promised to the reception of one kind all that 
he promised to him who receives "both. And 
again, if they were, the pure Church of the first 
four centuries, would not have administered 
one species without the other, as she frequently 
did. 

Q. Why does the Catholic Church adminis- 
ter the sacrament under one kind only ? 

A. Amongst other reasons, first, because, for 
the above reasons, it is evidently unnecessary to 
use both ; and, secondly, because many acci- 
dents, exposing this most holy sacrament to 
irreverence (such as spilling the cup) would 
take place, if the cup were given to all. 

Q. Have Protestants made any admissions 
on this head? 

A. Yes ; the Confession of Augsburg excuses 
the Church from any blame in this matter, (p. 
235;) and Luther, torn, ii, p. 100, says: — "If 
you go where only one kind is administered, 
be content with one kind, and don't oppose the 
great mass of Christians ;" and again, torn, iii, 
p. 274 — " If a General Council should order us 
to receive under both kinds, out of contempt 
for the Council we should receive only one/' 

Q. What do you conclude from all we have 
said ? 

A. Protestants, in forming their creed, have 



120 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

read the Scripture without studying its mean- 
ing. 

Q. What other inference viould you draw ? 

A. That the Scripture does not contain every 
necessary truth clearly laid down ; otherwise, 
there would be no dispute on this subject. 



ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Who is the author of the Mass ? Was 
it instituted by Jesus Christ, or by the Church 1 

A. Jesus Christ is the author of the essential 
part, or the sacrifice of his body and blood ; the 
Church has appointed merely the accompany- 
ing ceremonial. 

Q. Did Jesus Christ offer his body and his 
blood for us to his Father in the Last Supper ? 

A. He did, not only upon the cross, but in 
his Last Supper. 

Q. How do you prove this ? 

A. By the words of Christ himself. In St. 
Luke, chap, xxii, he says : " This is my body, 
•which dS GIVEN for you." Mark well his 
words. He does not say, this is my body, which 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 121 

shall be given for you, but which IS now, 
whilst I speak, given for you. This becomes 
more evident still, from the words used by 
Christ, whilst he held the chalice in his hands, 
and this whether we follow the Catholic or 
Protestant translation : " This is my blood of 
the new testament, which is shed for many for 
the remission of sins'" (Matth. xxvi, 28, Prot. 
Transl.) " For this is my blood of the new 
testament, which shall be shed for many unto 
remission of sins." (Matth. xxvi, 28, Cath. 
Transl.) St. Mark and St. Luke are equally 
clear, especially the latter, chap, xxii, 20. 
From these passages, it is quite clear that the 
chalice contained what was shed for us ; but 
what was shed for us, was the blood of Christ ; 
therefore the chalice contained the blood of 
Christ. But at the time of the Last Supper, 
Christ had not vef shed his blood for us in the 
sacrifice of the cross ; therefore he shed it in 
the sacrifice of his Last Supper ; therefore, in 
his Last Supper, Christ offered in sacrifice his 
body which was broken, his blood which was 
shed, for the remission of our sins ; therefore, 
he offered a true and real propitiatory sacrifice 
in his Last Supper. 

Q. What follows from this? 

A. If Christ, in his Last Supper, offered a 
tine and real sacrifice of his body and blood, 

11 



122 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

before he offered himself in sacrifice on the 
cross, it follows, that all the priests of his 
Church must offer the same sacrifice, because 
Christ ordered all his ministers to do what he 
himself had done on that occasion : " Do this 
for a commemoration of me" 

Q. What is the title given by David, in 
109th Psalm, to Jesus Christ? 

A. He styles him a " Priest for ever, accord- 
ing to the order of Melchizedeck." 

Q. Why is he styled "for ever a priest, ac- 
cording to the order of Melchizedeck ?" 

A. Because, like Melchizedeck, he used bread 
and wine in the sacrifice. 

Q. Why is Christ styled a priest for ever, 
after Melchizedeck' s order ? 

A. Because he continues, and will continue, 
to offer the same sacrifice by the hands of his 
priests to the end of the w r orld. 

Q. Would Christ be a priest for ever ac- 
cording to the order of Melchizedeck, if a sacri- 
fice, according to Melchizedeck 's order, had been 
only offered at the Last Supper by himself? 

A. No ; for in that case, he would not be a 
priest for ever, but only for ogee, according to 
the order of Melchizedeck : to be a priest for 
ever, it was necessary he should establish an 
everlasting order of priests, to offer the same 
sacrifice, as his substitutes. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 123 

Q. Would Christ be a priest, according to 
the order of Melchisedeck, if he had not used 
bread and wine in a true and real sacrifice in 
the Last Supper ? 

A. No ; for if he did not do so in the Last 
Supper, he is not a priest at all, according to 
the order of Melchizedeck, since there is no re- 
semblance between his sacrifice on the cross, 
and the sacrifice of Melchizedeck ; and if Christ 
did not at his Last Supper, he never at any 
other time did, offer a sacrifice similar in any 
manner to that of Melchizedeck. 

Q. What does the prophet Malachy say 
touching this sacrifice ? 

A. " From the rising of the sun, even to the 
going down thereof, my name is great among 
the Gentiles ; and in every place there is 
sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a 
clean oblation.^ 

Q. Does not Malachy foretell here merely the 
sacrifice of the cross ? 

A, No, not that alone ; for he speaks of a 
sacrifice to be offered in every place, and the 
sacrifice of the cross was offered in only one 
place and for one time. Hence, there must be 
a sacrifice of the new law, intimately connected, 
or identical, with that of the cross, to be offered 
up in every place, which can be no other than 
the Eucharistic sacrifice. 



124 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. May not this clean oblation be prayer 
and praise and thanksgiving ? 

A. No ; for this would be nothing new for a 
prophet to foretell ; this sort of oblation was 
offered to God in every age, even at the time 
the prophecy was made. Besides, who would 
dare to say that his imperfect prayer was a 
clean oblation ? The prophet evidently alludes 
to some extraordinary sacrifice, some new clean 
oblation to come, not already existing, which 
would be substituted for all the sacrifices of the 
old law, which, in the previous verses, he con- 
demns. 

Q. What says the prophet Jeremias on this 
subject? (Chap, xxxiii, 18.) 

A. " Neither shall there be cut off from the 
priests and Levites a man before my face, to 
offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to 
kill victims continually" 

Q. What says St. Paul? (Heb. v, 1.) 

A. " For every high priest, taken from among 
men, is ordained for man in things pertaining to 
God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices 
for sins ;" and elsewhere, he says : " We have 
an altar of which those who serve the tabernacle 
dare not eat." 

Q. Do you find that these doctrines of the 
Apostles, or what was foretold of the Christian 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 125 

Church by the prophets, are realized or verified 
in the Protestant Church ? 

A. No ; for the Protestant Church has no 
altar, or priest, or sacrifice, all of which, ac- 
cording to Scripture, are clearly necessary in 
the true Christian Church. 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. How many kinds of sacrifices were there 
in the old law ? 

A. There were four ; — the holocaust, the 
Eucharistic, the impetratory, and the propitia- 
tory sacrifices. 

Q. Why were victims offered, in holocaust ? 

A. To acknowledge the supreme dominion 
of God over all creatures. 

Q. For what purpose was the Eucharistic 
sacrifice ? 

A. To thank God for favors and graces re- 
ceived. 

Q. For what was the impetratory sacrifice 
instituted ? 

A. To obtain from God important benefits 
or graces. 

Q. For what end was the propitiatory sacri- 
fice ? 

A. To render God propitious, and to expiate 
sin. 

11* 



126 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What says St. Augustine, born in 354, 
in his work on the City of God, written about 
fourteen hundred years ago ? 

A. That the one sacrifice of the Mass was 
instituted to hold the place of all the sacrifices 
of the old law. 

Q. What says St. Ireneus ? (Lib. iv, chap. 
33.) 

A. " The Apostles received this sacrifice 
from Christ, the Church from the Apostles, and 
she offers it everywhere, according to the 
prophecy of Malachy : ( and in every place a 
pure sacrifice shall be offered.' " 

Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass been offer- 
ed everywhere during the last two hundred 
years ? 

A, Yes ; in every Christian country of the 
earth. 

Q. Has it been everywhere offered during 
the last twelve hundred years ? 

A. Yes ; as all the ancient liturgies— Latin, 
Greek, Arabic, &c. — attest. 

Q. Can any one point out the first priest, 
bishop, or Pope, who said Mass, or the time or 
country in which this first Mass was said? 

A. No ; no man has ever been able to make 
such a discovery. 

Q. What follows from this ? 

A. It follows by St. Augustine's rule, that 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 127 

we have received the Mass from Christ and his 
Apostles, since, if it were the invention of man, 
it could be traced to its author ; for says that 
Father, whatever is universally believed and 
practised in the Church, and cannot be traced 
to any bishop, or Pope, or council, as its author, 
must have been taught and practised by the 
Apostles. 

Q. Give me another authority, from the 
many Fathers who assure us, that the pure 
Christian Church of the earliest ages admitted 
the Mass as a true sacrifice 1 

A. St. Cyprian (Epist. 78) says : " Jesus 
Christ offered the same sacrifice as did Mel- 
chizedeck, that is, bread and wine, his own body 

and blood If Jesus Christ, our Lord and 

God, be himself the high priest of his Father, 
and if he first offered himself as a sacrifice to 
him, and commanded the same to be done in 
remembrance of him, then that priest truly 
stands in the place of Christ, who does what 
Christ did, and offers in the Church a new and 
complete sacrifice to God the Father, doing 
what he ordained." 



CHAPTER III. 

Q. Is the sacrifice of the Mass a true, pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice ? 



128 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Yes ; both for the living and the dead. 

Q. In what sense is it a propitiatory sacri- 
fice for the living ? 

A. In this, that through it they obtain the 
spirit of compunction and grace to repent of 
their sins. 

Q. How is it propitiatory for the dead? 

A. It contributes to the remission of the 
temporal punishment,* which they may still 
owe to the Divine Justice. 

Q. How do you prove that the Mass is truly 
a propitiatory sacrifice ? 

A. From St. Matth. chap, xxvi : " This is 
my blood of the new testament, which is shed 
for many for the remission of sins ;" and from 
St. Paul to the Hebrews, chap. 5 : " For every 
high priest, taken from among men, is ordained 
for men in the things that appertain to God, 
that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for 
sins." 

Q. What do you conclude from these ? 

A. That as we certainly have, in the Chris- 
tian Church, a high priest, so his duty certainly 
is to offer sacrifices for sins. 

Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice 
propitiatory or expiatory ? — has not the sacru 
fice of the cross alone expiated all sin ? 

* See Treatise on Indulgences 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 129 

A. The sacrifice of the cross and the sacri- 
fice of trie altar, are one and the same. 

Q. Why then renew every day the same 
sacrifice ? is not the sacrifice of the cross once 
offered sufficient ? 

A. The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of 
the cross are infinite ; but that virtue and these 
merits must be applied, and this can only be 
done by certain means. 

Q. What are these means by which the 
merits of the sacrifice of the cross are applied 
to our souls ? 

A. They are the sacraments, the sacrifice of 
the Mass, prayer, and good works. 

Q. Amongst these means, in what light are 
we to regard the sacrifice of the Mass ? 

A. We are to regard it as a means employed 
by the Almighty, for applying the sacred merits 
of the sacrifice of the cross to our souls, in a 
very particular manner. 

Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass been offered 
for the dead since the earliest ages ? 

A. Yes ; as is evident from the testimony 
of the early Fathers and writers. Tertullian, 
lib. de Monog., says : " That a woman who 
would not have the holy sacrifice of the Mass 
celebrated every year for her husband on the 
anniversary of his death, should be considered 
as one who had been divorced from him." St. 



130 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Cyprian, Epist. 9, says : " Our predecessors 
prudently advised, that no brother departing 
this life should nominate any churchman his 
executor, and, should he do it, that no oblation 
should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered 
for his repose/' The Council of Chalons (anno 
579) decrees, that in all solemn Masses, pray- 
ers be offered up for the souls of the departed. 
In fine, St. Augustine, lib. xxii, de Civit. Dei, 
tells us, " that one of his priests celebrated Mass 
in a house infested by evil spirits, and that by 
this their banishment was effected." 



ON PURGATORY. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. How do you prove that there is a Pur- 
gatory, or middle state between hell and heaven ? 

A. It is proved, 1st, from the Old Testament ; 
2dly, from the New Testament ; and, 3dly, from 
tradition. 

Q. What is your proof from the Old Testa- 
ment ? 

A. In 2d Machab. chap. 12, where Judas, the 
valiant commander, collects and sends to- Jeru- 
salem twelve thousand drachmas of silver, for 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 131 

sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead. 
" It is therefore/' says this passage, " a holy and 
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that 
they may be loosed from their sins." 

Q. What do you conclude from this pas- 
sage ? 

A. That besides heaven and hell there is a 
middle state ; because, as the souls in heaven 
require not the aid of prayer, so the souls in 
hell can receive no benefit from it ; hence, 
there must be some third state of souls, in 
which prayer is beneficial to them. 

Q. But is this book of Machabees a canoni- 
cal book, containing God's icord ? 

A. It has been recognised as such from the 
earliest ages. St. Augustine (Civit. Dei, chap. 
36) says : " The Church of God has always 
acknowledged the Machabees as a canonical 
book/' Protestants have rejected this book, 
like many other books of Scripture, because 
it contains doctrines opposed to their novel in- 
ventions. They do not seem to reflect, that it 
is on the authority of the Catholic Church they 
know the Scriptures which they admit to be 
God's word, and they have that authority for 
this book as well as for the rest. 

Q. Does not the author of Machabees make 
an apology for the errors it contains 1 

A. Yes ; for errors of style, but not for er- 



132 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

rors in fact or doctrine. See, for another 
argument on this subject of Purgatory, Gen. 
xxx vii, 33. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. How do you prove from the New Testa- 
ment that there is a Purgatory 1 

A. From Matthew, chap. 12 : " Whosoever 
speaketh a word against the Son of man, it 
shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 
him ; neither in this world, neither in the world 
to come." 

Q. What inference does St. Augustine draw 
from this passage 1 (Civit. Dei, chap, xiv, 
lib. 21.) 

A. That some sins are forgiven in the next 
world, otherwise this passage of Scripture would 
be nonsense. Now sins are not remitted in 
heaven, for no sin can enter there ; nor in hell, 
for there is no redemption from that awful 
abode : therefore there must be some third 
place, where some sins are forgiven. 

Q. Cite the words of St. Paul? (1 Cor. 
chap, iii.) 

A. " And the fire shall try every man's 
work, of what sort it is. If any man's work 
abide .... he shall receive a reward ; if any 
man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 133 

loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by 
fire/' 

Q. What on this do you remark ? 

A. There can be no pain, or suffering, or 
fire in heaven ; nor is the fire of hell for salva- 
tion, but damnation : therefore this fire, which 
worketh unto salvation, must be in Purgatory. 

Q. What says the same Apostle ? (Philip, 
chap, ii, 10.) 

A, " That, at the name of Jesus, every knee 
should bow, of those that are in heaven, on 
earth, and under the earth." 

Q. How do you reason on this ? 

A. By those under the earth, are evidently 
meant, not the dead bodies, but the souls of the 
dead not yet in heaven. Now these souls are 
certainly either in hell or in Purgatory, or in 
both. But St. Paul cannot allude to those in 
hell, for he knew well that they would not 
bow the knee to Jesus, — therefore he must 
allude to souls in some other place, which is 
not heaven, or earth, or the hell of the damned ; 
therefore that place exists, and it is that which 
Catholics call Purgatory. 

Q. What does St. John say (Apoc. chap, 
xxi, 27) of Heaven ? 

A. " And there shall not enter into it any 
thing defiled." 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

12 



134 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. That there must be some place for the 
purification of souls after death ; because the 
Scripture assures us, that even the just man 
falls seven times, — and can any one in his 
senses suppose that many will not die without 
expiating these faults ? With these they can- 
not enter heaven, which receiveth nothing de- 
filed ; they cannot be sent to hell, for they are, 
according to Scripture, just. Therefore there 
must be a third place, where these failings of 
even the just man will be expiated. See also 
1 Corinth, chap, xv, 29; 2 Tim. i, 18, — where 
St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus after he was 
dead. 

Q. Did any one ascend to heaven before our 
Saviour ? 

A. No ; for in St. John, chap, iii, 13, Christ 
says — " No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but He that came down from heaven." 

Q. Where then were all the just souls of the 
Old Testament until Christ's ascension ? 

A. They were not in heaven, they were not 
in hell, therefore they were in some middle 
place or state. 

Q. What is the meaning of that passage in 
1 Peter, iii, 18, which says, that Christ went 
and preached unto the spirits in prison ? Where 
were these spirits ? 

A. They were not in heaven, for there they 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 135 

would require no preaching ; they were not in 
hell, for there preaching could be of no use to 
them ; — therefore they were in some middle 
state where the preaching of Christ could avail 
them, and this is what Catholics call Purgatory. 

Q,. Does not the Scripture say, that as the 
tree falls so it shall lie ? 

A. Yes ; but this means, simply, that every 
man who dies, is either saved or lost ; and it 
may also refer to the state of the soul after the 
last judgment. The moment man dies, his 
ultimate fate is decided, either for the south or 
the north, for heaven or hell. 

Q. Is it not said, (Apoc. xiv,) — " Blessed are 
the dead who die in the Lord, for they shall 
rest from their labors ?" 

A. Yes ; thrice blessed we say ; but this text 
only alludes to martyrs and such as die free 
from all sin and debt of temporal punishment, 
and such, of course, require not purification. 
They really die in the Lord. 

Q. Does not Christ say to the good thief, 
" this day thou shalt be with me in paradise ?" 

A. Yes ; but it is not clear, that by paradise, 
is here meant heaven and not Purgatory ; and 
even if this were clear, a miracle of God's 
grace, wrought in favor of a penitent on the 
very day the world was redeemed, is not to be 
considered as God's general rule with regard 



136 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

to sinners. In fine, the good thief suffered 
much on the cross, and Christ might have re- 
ceived his patient sufferings there as his pur- 
gatorial expiation. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. What is your third mode of proving that 
there is a Purgatory ? 

A. By tradition, or the unanimous testimony 
of the Fathers. 

Q. Was all antiquity of the belief that there 
is a Purgatory ? 

A. The third Council of Carthage, anno 253, 
decreed prayers for the dead. The Council of 
Chalons in 579, the Council of Worms in 829, 
and the Council of Trent, all came to the same 
decision. 

Q. Are the Ancient Fathers unanimous on 
this question ? 

A. You have only to consult Berrington's 
and Kirk's Faith of Catholics, to be satisfied 
that they are most unanimous. St. Ephrem 
orders prayers for the repose of his soul after 
his death. The Emperor Constantine wished 
to be buried in a church, that the faithful might 
remember him in their prayers to God. St. 
Chrysostom, in his 1 Horn, on 1 Epist. to 
Corinth, says : " The tears of the living are not 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 137 

useless to the dead, — that prayers and alms re- 
lieve them." St. Jerom, in his Epistle to Pam- 
machius, remarks : " It is customary to strew 
with flowers the graves of the female dead, but 
you have followed a better usage in strewing the 
grave of your wife with alms for the solace of 
her soul." St. Augustine, in 13th chap, of his 
9th Book of Confession, says : " I shed not a 
tear, whilst they offered the holy sacrifice for 
the peace of my dear mother's soul." On the 
37th Psalm, he prays thus : " Purify me, O 
Lord, in this life, that I may not require the 
application of that fire, by which souls are tried, 
in the next ;" and, in his Work on the Heresies, 
(Heresy 53,) he says : " Aerius was the first 
who dared to teach, that it was of no use to 
offer up prayers and sacrifices for the dead, 
and this doctrine of Aerius is the fifty-third 
heresy." 

Q. Does it follow, from the circumstance 
that the ancient Church prayed for the dead, 
that there is a Purgatory ? 

A. Certainly ; if the Church always prayed 
for the dead, she believed the dead were in a 
place where prayer could be beneficial to them ; 
this place was not heaven, nor could it be hell, 
therefore it was Purgatory. 

12* 



138 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 



ON JUSTIFICATION. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. What is justification ? 

A. It is a grace which makes us friends of 
God. 

Q. Can a sinner merit this justifying 
grace ? 

A. No, he cannot ; because all the good 
works which the sinner performs whilst he is 
in a state of mortal sin, are dead works, which 
have no merit sufficient to justify. 

Q. Is it an article of the Catholic faith, that 
the sinner, in mortal sin, cannot merit the 
grace of justification ? 

A. Yes ; it is decreed in the seventh chap, 
of the sixth sess. of the Council of Trent, that 
neither faith, nor good works, preceding justi- 
fication, can merit the grace of justification. 

Q. How then is the sinner justified ? 

A. He is justified gratuitously by the pure 
mercy of God, not on account of his own or 
any human merit, but purely through the merits 
of Jesus Christ ; for Jesus Christ is our only 
mediator of redemption, who alone, by his pas- 
sion and death, has reconciled us to his Father. 

Q. Why then do Protestants charge us with 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 139 

believing, that the sinner can merit the remis- 
sion of his sins ? 

A. Their ignorance of the Catholic doctrine 
is the cause of this, as well as many other false 
charges. 

Q. Must we then conclude, that the sinner 
cannot, by good works, obtain the grace of jus- 
tification ? 

A. The sinner may obtain the grace of jus- 
tification by good works proceeding from a 
broken and penitent heart, because these are 
necessary predispositions and conditions, but 
no works of his own can ever merit the grace 
of justification. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What part has faith in the justification 
of the sinner ? 

A. It is its root or foundation, the first step 
to its attainment, an all-necessary condition, 
without which no man can ever be justified ; 
because the Apostle says : " Without faith, it is 
impossible to please God." 

Q. But is faith alone sufficient to justify the 
sinner ? 

A. No ; God requires other dispositions in 
order to the reception of justifying grace. He 
requires the sinner to fear God, to love God, to 



140 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

hope in God, to be sorry for past sin, and to 
have a well-grounded purpose not to sin again. 

Q. Does God require these as necessary con- 
ditions, or as meritorious works ? 

A. As necessary conditions, without which 
he will not receive the sinner in grace. 

Q. What do the Scriptures say on this sub- 
ject ? 

A. "And when thou shalt seek there the 
Lord thy God, thou shalt find him ; yet so, if 
thou seek him with all thy heart and all the 
affliction of thy soul." — Deut. chap, iv, 29. 
" But if the wicked man do penance for all his 
sins which he hath committed, and keep all my 
commandments and do judgment and justice, 
living, he shall live, and shall not die." — Ezek. 
chap, xviii, 21. "If you keep my command- 
ment, you shall abide in my love ; . . . . you are 
my friends, if you do the things that I com- 
mand you." — John, chap, xv, 10, 14. 

Q. What do you conclude from these pas- 
sages ? 

A. In the first place, that the sinner can 
never be justified, unless he comply with these 
necessary conditions ; and, secondly, that faith 
alone is not sufficient to justify him. 

Q. Does not the Baptist say, John, chap, hi, 
36 : " He that believeth in the Son hath life 
everlasting ?" 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 141 

A. Yes ; but St. John speaks here of effica- 
cious faith, that is, he who believeth in the Son, 
so as to believe all that he teaches and prac- 
tise all that he commands, shall have everlast- 
ing life. 

Q. Does not St. Paul, Rom. chap, iii, 28, 
say : " We account a man to be justified by 
faith, without the works of the law ?" 

A. True, but St. Paul is speaking here of 
the Jewish, not the Christian law ; for St. Paul 
cannot contradict St. James. Now, St. James 
says, in words about which there can be no 
dispute, chap, ii, 22, 24 : " Seest thou that faith 
did co-operate with his works, and by works, 
faith was made perfect : ... .do you see, that by 
works a man is justified, and not by faith only ;" 
and, ver. 26, he adds : " For even as the body 
without the spirit is dead, so also faith without 
works is dead/' 

Q,. Does not St. Paul, Rom. chap, v, 1, say : 
" Being justified therefore by faith, let us 
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 

Christ r 

A. Yes ; but the same St. Paul, 1 Corinth, 
chap, xiii, 1, 2, says: "If I speak with the 
tongues of men and of angels, and have not 
charity, I am become as a sounding brass ;. . . . 
and if I should have all faith, so that I could 
remove mountains, and have not charity, I am 



142 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

notning." So that it is quite clear the Apostle 
speaks, in the passage quoted, of that lively 
faith, animated by charity, which is ever pro- 
ducing good works. 

Q. Protestants suppose, that good works are 
the necessary effect of faith, as heat is of fire 9 
or light of the sun : is this supposition correct ? 

A. No ; for St. John, chap, xii, 42, says : 
" Many of the chief men also believed in him ; 
but because of the Pharisees, they did not con- 
fess him ; .... for they loved the glory of men 
more than the glory of God." 



CHAPTER III. 

Q. Can any one, who is in a state of mortal 
sin, merit heaven by any good work or works ? 

A. No ; he can neither merit justification, 
nor heaven ; because, all the works he performs 
while in a state of mortal sin are dead works, 
and of course have no merit. 

Q. Can one who is in a state of grace merit 
heaven ? 

A. The just, who are in a state of grace, 
may, by good works, merit an increase of glory, 
but even they can never, by any or every good 
work, merit the first degree of glory, that is, a 
right to heaven. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 143 

Q. To whom do we owe our permission to 
enter heaven ? 

A. Solely to the mercy of God and the 
merits of Jesus Christ : for it is by the suffer- 
ings and death of Jesus that we acquired heaven 
as our inheritance ; and it is God's mercy alone, 
which gave us such a Mediator and Redeemer. 

Q. Why have you said that the just may, 
by good works, merit an increase of glory in 
heaven ? 

A. Because, in Scripture, heaven is proposed 
to us as a recompense, and a recompense or 
reward is due only to merit. 

Q. What does St. Matthew say on this mat- 
ter? (Chap, v, 12.) 

A. " Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is 
very great in heaven/' In Prov. chap, xi, 18 
— " But to him that soweth in justice, there is 
a faithful reward." St. James, chap, i, 12 — 
" Blessed is the man that endureth tempta- 
tion, for when he hath been proved, he shall 
receive the crown of life, which God hath 
promised to them that love him." St. Paul, 
2 Tim. chap, iv, 7, adds : " I have fought a 
good fight, I have finished my course, I have 
kept the faith ; as to the rest, there is laid 
up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, 
the just judge, will render to me in that 
day." 



lit A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What have Protestants to object against 
this Scriptural doctrine ? 

A. Nothing that is either rational or Scrip- 
tural ; for the learned among themselves have 
taught the very same. The Apology for the 
Protestant Confession of Augsburg, p. 96, 
says : u We teach, that good works merit a 
temporal and spiritual reward in this world, as 
well as in the next." 

Q. What then have Protestants to say to 
Catholics on the subject of merit and good 
works t 

A. All they have to say arises from their 
ignorance of the Catholic doctrine. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. What is that which gives their value to 
good works t 

A. Sanctifying grace, which is within us. 

Q. Is this sanctifying grace our own, or is 
it from God t 

A. It is the pure gift of God's liberality to us. 

Q. How does St. Paul express himself on 
this subject t (Rom., chap, v, 3.) 

A. " The charity of God," he says, " is poured 
forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is 
given to us." 

Q. What are the effects of sanctifying grace ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 145 

A. It makes us the friends and children of 
God. 

Q. To whom do we owe this inestimable 
grace ? 

A. To the merits of Jesus Christ, and to these 
alone. 

Q. Have you any thing to remark on the 
efficacy of the merits of Christ ? 

A. Yes ; he was not satisfied with meriting 
heaven for us ; he also, by his grace, put us in 
a condition to merit greater degrees of glory in 
heaven. 

Q. Does not our Saviour say, Luke, chap, 
xvii, 10 — " So you also, when you shall have 
done all those things that are commanded you, 
say, we are unprofitable servants ?" 

A. This is quite in accordance with our 
doctrine ; we are certainly unprofitable servants 
to God, whatever good we do ; for nothing 
which we can do, either adds to, or takes from, 
his essential glory. We are not, however, un- 
profitable servants to ourselves, since these 
good works secure for us the rewards God has 
been pleased to promise. 

Q. Could God order us to perform good 
works without promising us any recompense 1 

A. Certainly ; because we are his creatures, 
and the grace which enables us is his. The 
Council of Trent, Sess. xvi, chap. 16, says: 

13 



146 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

" God's goodness to man is so great, that he 
even desires his own gifts to be converted into 
our merit/' 

Q. Have we reason to trust much in our 
good works ? 

A. "God forbid/' says the same Council, 
"that any Christian should glory, or confide in 
himself, and not in the Lord." 

Q. How is it, then, that Protestants re- 
proach Catholics with placing too much confi- 
dence in their good works ? 

A. They reproach us, because they do not 
know us ; and the only return we should make 
for their ill-treatment of us, is to pray, as Christ 
did for the ignorant Jews, who put him to 
death : " Father, forgive them, for they know 
not what they do." 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Can a man satisfy for his own sins ? 

A. No ; neither man nor angel, nor both 
men and angels, can ever satisfy for one mortal 
sin. Jesus Christ alone could and has satisfied 
for our sins. 

Q. Can we apply to ourselves the satisfac- 
tion of Jesus ? 

A. We can, certainly, with the help of God s 
grace. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 147 

Q. How is the satisfaction of Christ ap- 
plied to us ? 

A. In two ways, either when we receive a 
full remission of temporal as well as eternal 
punishment, or when the eternal is remitted 
and some temporal punishment is reserved for 
us to endure. 

Q. In what case are both the eternal and 
temporal punishment remitted by the applica- 
tion of the satisfaction of Christ to our souls? 

A. In baptism, by which ail sin, and all pun- 
ishment due to sin, is remitted. 

Q. When are the satisfactions of Jesus so 
applied to our souls, that, though the eternal 
punishment be remitted, we may have some tem- 
poral punishment to endure? 

A. Commonly in the sacrament of penance. 

Q. Are not the guilt and the punishment 
remitted together ? 

A. No ; for it often happens that God, in 
forgiving the sinner, changes the eternal punish- 
ment which he has deserved by his sins, into a 
temporal or temporary punishment. 

Q. Make this clear by an example from 
2 Kings, xii chap. 

A. David is guilty of murder, which deserves 
the eternal punishment of hell. Nathan warns 
him of his danger. David repents — " I have," 
says he, u sinned against the Lord." Nathan 



148 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

replies — " The Lord also hath taken away thy 
sin ; thou shalt not die." Behold the eter- 
nal punishment taken away ; but* what is sub- 
stituted in its place ? Mark what follows, a 
temporal punishment is substituted in its place 
— " Nevertheless, because thou hast given oc- 
casion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme ; 
for this thing, the child that is born to thee 
shall surely die." (Prot. Vers., 2 Sam. xii.) 

Q. Give another Scriptural example that all 
doubt may be removed. 

A. In the xxiv chap, of same Book, (Protest. 
Vers., 2 Sam. xxiv chap.,) David repents of 
his sinful pride in numbering the people : God 
forgives him, but on condition, that he should 
suffer, as a temporal punishment, either seven 
years of famine, or three months of flight be- 
fore his enemies, or three days of pestilence ; 
and, in addition, the prophet Gad orders him to 
erect an altar and offer sacrifice to the Lord. 

Q. Can the penitent sinner pay, in any 
manner, the debt of "temp or al punishment which 
is due to the justice of God ? 

A. Yes ; as is quite evident from the above 
two passages. Indeed, the Scripture counsels 
it in express terms. Daniel, chap, iv, 24— 
" Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be accept- 
able to thee ; redeem thou thy sins with alms, 
and thy iniquities with works of mercy to 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 149 



the poor." The same may be drawn from 
Protestant Vers., chap, iv, 27, though much 
corrupted to suit a Protestant purpose. Our 
Saviour himself, Luke, chap, xi, 4, says : " Give 

ALMS, and BEHOLD ALL THINGS ARE CLEAN UNTO 
YOU." 



ON INDULGENCES 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. What is an Indulgence ? 

A. It is a remission of the temporal punish- 
ment due to venial sin, and also to mortal sin, 
after the eternal punishment has been remitted, 
as mentioned above in the case of David. 

Q. Are sins remitted by Indulgences ? 

A. No ; sins are remitted by the sacraments 
of baptism and penance. 

Q. Has the Church the power to remit tem- 
poral punishments ? 

A. When the applicant or sinner is properly 
disposed, the Church has power to remove 
every obstacle to his admission into heaven : 
but a debt of temporal punishment, due to God's 
justice, is a temporary obstacle ; therefore the 
Church has power to remove it. That this 
proposition is most certainly true, is evident 
from Matth., chap, xviii, 18 : " Whatsoever 

13* 



150 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound 
also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose 
upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." 
From which it is more than evident, that the 
pow r ers of the Church, over sin and its punish- 
ment, are not in any way confined or restrained, 
provided always, that the sinner have the proper 
dispositions ; and if the Church has power to 
remit the sin itself, (as beyond all doubt she has,) 
she has surely power to remit the temporal 
punishment due to sin. 

Q. Are Indulgences of very ancient date in 
the Church ? 

A. Yes ; since the very commencement of 
Christianity. 

Q. Give us a clear instance of their early 
use, 

A. St. Paul granted an Indulgence to the 
incestuous Corinthian, by the remission of the 
temporal punishment to which he had subjected 
that public sinner ; and the Apostle declares, 
that it is by the power of Christ, and in Christ's 
person, he acts in this matter — 2 Cor. chap, ii, 
10: — "For what I have pardoned, if I have 
pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done 
it in the person of Christ" 

Q. Is this temporal punishment always in- 
flicted in this life ? 

A. It may be inflicted here, or in Purgatory 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 151 

hereafter : and if not discharged here, it must 
be discharged hereafter. 

Q. Do the Fathers of the early Church speak 
of Indulgences or the remission of temporal 
punishment ? 

A. Yes ; St. Cyprian, Epist 1 8th, says, that 
the bishops of the Church granted (like St. Paul) 
a remission of the canonical penances and peni- 
tential works, by the mediation of holy con- 
fessors or martyrs, " the abundance of whose 
merits might supply for the want of their 
brethren," according to that of St. Paul : " I 
now rejoice in suffering for you." — Col. chap, 
i, 24. 

Q. Have any Councils spoken on this sub- 
ject ? 

A. The Council of Ancyra (anno 314) orders 
the bishops, " having considered the conduct of 
the penitents, to show them mercy, or to lengthen 
the time of their penance" 

Q. What inference do you draw from this 
practice of the Church in ancient times ? 

A. That, in the remission of the canonical 
penances, she also remitted so much of the 
temporal punishment before God. 

Q. Why ? what connection is there between 
the one and the other ? 

A. The canonical penances were inflicted 
by God's Church as a temporal punishment 



152 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

due to sin. This, as inflicted by his Church, 
is accepted by God, either as the whole or a 
part of what his justice demands ; for whatever 
his true Church does, is done by himself — 
" As my Father sent me, even so I send you ;" 
" Whatsoever you shall loose in earth, shall be 
loosed also in heaven ;" " He that heareth you, 
heareth me ;" &c, &c. 

Q. Can any Indulgence or leave be granted 
by any power on earth to commit sin ? 

A. No ; nor can God himself give leave to 
commit what is of its own nature sinful. 

Q. Does not the Pope give leave to tell lies, 
and commit perjury, and make mental reserva- 
tions, and be disloyal, and persecute Protest- 
ants, when these appear to him to promote the 
Catholic cause ? 

A. No ; these are all Protestant calum- 
nies. 

Q. Would dispensations or pardons granted 
for any such ends have any validity ? 

A. No ; they would only add sacrilege to 
blasphemy. 

Q. Is it an article of the Catholic faith, that 
temporal punishment is remitted before God by 
an Indulgence 1 

A. It is not ; but it is an established opinion 
amongst all theologians, morally speaking, and 
their opinion is well supported by Scripture. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 153 

Q. What has the Church decided on this 
subject ? 

A. That God has left in his Church the 
power of granting Indulgences, and that In- 
dulgences are extremely advantageous to the 
Christian people. Decret. 1, de Indul. Sess. 25. 

Q. Is there any thing in this decree with 
which Protestants can reasonably be offended? 

A. No ; for they themselves grant Indul- 
gences of their own, as is evident from the his- 
tory of the cutty stool. For particular sins, those 
who were rich were mulcted in a pecuniary 
fine, and those who were poor were obliged to 
give satisfaction before the whole congregation. 
Now, either this was of use to the sinner or it 
was not ; if the former, it was an Indulgence ; 
if the latter, then for what purpose was it prac- 
tised ? For further proof of the practice of the 
ancient and pure Church, see Coun. of Nice, 
(anno 325 ? ) Can. xii, Cone. Gen. T. 2. 



ON THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Who is the true and chief head of the 
Church ? 



154 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Jesus Christ is the true head of the Church, 
who, being himself invisible, governs his Church 
from heaven in an invisible manner. 

Q. Did Jesus Christ appoint any vicar on 
earth to govern his Church in quality of visible 
chief or head ? 

A. Yes ; he appointed for that purpose St. 
Peter and his successors. 

Q. Did St. Peter receive more power than 
the other Apostles from Christ ? 

A. Yes ; as is evident from many passages 
of Scripture. 

Q. Quote St. Matthew, chap. xvi. 

A. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." 

Q. What is meant here by the word " rock 1" 

A. Peter himself. 

Q. Why? 

A. Because in John, chap, i, 42, Christ, in 
calling Peter, gives him a new name, which 
signifies a rock, and which explains clearly the 
meaning of the word " rock" in the above text. 
" Thou art Simon the son of Jona, thou shalt 
be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, 
or a rock." Our Saviour spoke in the Syriac 
language, and in that language, Cephas i? the 
same as Petros in the Greek, both meaning a 
rock ; indeed, the words of Christ, literally in- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 155 

terpreted, have this meaning : " Thou art a 
rock, and upon this rock I will build my 
Church." Such words were not addressed 
to any other Apostle. 

Q. What are the words of the text immedi- 
ately following ? Matth. chap, xvi, 19. 

A. " And I will give to thee (Peter) the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall loose on 
earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." 

Q. Did not Christ address the same words 
to all the Apostles ? 

A. On this occasion, he addressed these words 
to Peter alone, which makes it quite evident 
that he intended to confer on Peter a peculiar 
power ; when he addressed the other Apostles 
in these words, he did so generally and to all 
in common. 

Q. What does Christ say to Peter — John 
xxi, 15, 16, 17? 

A. " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." And 
the Fathers of the Church have understood by 
the lambs, the lay faithful people ; and by the 
sheep, the pastors of the people ; for as the 
sheep nourish the lambs, so do the pastors of the 
Church tend, and spiritually feed, their flocks. 

Q. What do you conclude from the above 
commission given only to Peter ? 



156 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. That Christ gave the charge of the whole 
Church, pastors and people, sheep and Iambs, 
to Peter alone. 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. Have you any other proofs of St Peter's 
Primacy or supremacy ? 

A. Yes ; in Luke, chap, xxii, v. 26, Christ 
says to his Apostles, " He that is greater among 
you, let him become as the younger ; and he 
that is the leader, as he that serveth." There- 
fore there was a greater, or leader, amongst 
the Apostles, otherwise Christ's words could 
have no meaning ; but if there was a leader, 
Peter, and no other, was that man. 

Q. Does Christ anywhere offer up a special 
prayer for Peter s faith, without including, in 
this prayer, the rest of the Apostles ? 

A, Yes ; Luke xxii, 32, — Christ says to Pe- 
ter these words : — " But I have prayed for thee, 
that thy faith fail not ; and thou, being once 
converted, confirm thy brethren." From 
which it is clear, that Peter had a superiority 
over his brethren given him by Christ ; for if 
he was only their equal, how could he confirm 
them? 

Q. Why does Christ — John, chap, xxi, 15 — 
before giving Peter the special charge of all 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 157 

Christ's lambs and sheep, ask that Apostle 
whether he loves him (Christ) more than the 
other Apostles love him ? 

A. Christ evidently requires greater love 
from Peter, because he is to confer a greater 
dignity upon him, committing to his care the 
whole Christian community, pastors and people. 

Q. Have you any other Scriptural proof of 
Peter s superiority ? 

A. When the Scripture gives the names of 
the Apostles in order, Peter's name is always 
placed first. (Matth. chap, x.) Nor can it 
be alleged that this was done because Peter 
was the oldest, for Andrew was Peter's elder, 
and was even the first to follow Christ. St. 
Ambrose, in Epist. ii, ad Cor. cap. xii, says, 
" Not Andrew, but Peter was chief amongst 
the Apostles." St. Augus. lib. de Baptis., says : 
" Behold Peter, who held the pre-eminence 
with such lustre." St. Optat, lib. contra Par- 
men., adds : " Peter was appointed chief of the 
Apostles, to the end that unity might be pre- 
served in the Church." 

Q. Did Peter act at any time as chief 
functionary of the Church ? 

A, He did so immediately after the Ascen- 
sion of our Lord. He assembled the Apostles ; 
he presided at the election of an Apostle to re- 
place Judas. (Acts, chap, i.) Peter was the 

14 



158 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

first to preach Jesus Christ crucified, and, by 
the conversion of three thousand at his first 
sermon, first gave form to the Christian Church, 
verifying the words of Christ, that he should be 
the rock or foundation from which the Church 
should rise. (Acts, chap, ii.) He is first to 
teach the admission of the Pagans or heathens 
to baptism, which matter he alone was taught 
by a revelation from heaven. (Acts, chap, x.) 
He works the first miracles, at the Beautiful 
gate of the Temple, on the lame man, (Acts, 
chap, iii,) on iEneas and Tabitha, (Acts, chap, 
ix,) and as a punishment on Ananias and Sap- 
phira, (Acts, chap, v.) 

Q. Does it appear, from any other circum- 
stances, that Peter was chief amongst the Apos- 
tles ? 

A. Yes ; for when he w T as cast into prison 
the whole Church prayed for him, nor was this 
done for any of the other Apostles ; to him 
alone did heaven vouchsafe an angel as a de- 
liverer from his prison, (Acts, chap, xii.) 

Q. Did Peter act as presiding teacher 
amongst the Apostles ? 

A. Yes ; he decided, in the first Council held 
at Jerusalem by the Apostles, that the Chris- 
tians should not be subjected to the Jewish rite 
of circumcision ; St. Paul, though an Apostle, 
did not venture to decide upon it. "Men, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 159 

brethren," said Peter, " you know that in former 
days God made choice among us, that by my 
mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the 
Gospel ;" and, when Peter had made an end of 
speaking, " all the multitude held their peace ;" 
and even James himself, who was bishop of 
Jerusalem, where the Apostles were assembled, 
rose only to repeat St. Peter's decision, and to 
acquiesce in it, (Acts, xv.) 

Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 

A. That there is not one truth more clearly 
established in Scripture, than the superiority or 
supremacy of Peter, and that the acrimonious 
attacks of Protestants on this article of the 
Christian faith, only prove that they make a 
sport of the Scripture, except in as far as it 
supplies them with some passages, seeming to 
bear two meanings, which they pervert, in order 
to prop up the tottering fabrics of contradictory 
and contrary schisms. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. The supremacy of St. Peter once estab- 
lished, what necessarily follows ? 

A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold 
the same rank and power ; because the form 
of government, established by Christ in his 
Church, was not to last merely during one or 



160 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

two centuries, but always, like the Church, 
until the consummation of the world. 

Q. Who are the successors of St. Peter ? 

A. The bishops of Rome, in which capital 
of the world, St. Peter established his See and 
ended his life. 

Q. What reply do you make to those who 
pretend to hold that St. Peter never was at 
Rome ? 

A. We put the following rather troublesome 
questions to them. In the first place, tell us, 
if St. Peter did not suffer martyrdom at Rome 
under the Emperor Nero, in what part of the 
world, and when did he die ? Secondly, if St. 
Peter did not die at Rome, at what time, and 
from what country, were his relics or remains 
transported thither, for there they are beyond 
all doubt ? Thirdly, did not the Fathers of the 
early and pure Church, who lived near to the 
time of St. Peter, know better than Protestants, 
who made their first appearance only three 
hundred years ago, who was the first bishop of 
Rome ? 

Q. Do any of these- Fathers say St. Peter 
was the first ? 

A. Yes ; St. Augustine, Ep. ad Gener., enu- 
merating the bishops who had governed the 
Church of Rome, begins thus — Peter was the 
first, to Peter succeeded Linus, and to Linus, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 161 

Clement. St. Optatus, contra Parmen. — " St. 
Peter first occupied the See of Rome, to him 
Linus succeeded, and after Linus, Clement." 
St. Ireneus, lib.- iii, cap. 3 ; St. Epiphanius, de 
27 Heres. ; and all the other Fathers who have 
given a catalogue of the bishops of Rome, 
assign the first occupation of that See to Pe- 
ter. St. Leo, in Ser. de Petro et Paulo, says : 
" Rome became the capital of the Christian 
world, because St. Peter established his See 
in Rome." In Pream. Goncil. Chalc, and also 
in Coun. Ephes., it is said, that " Peter lives, 
judges, and defines, in his successors" " Happy 
Church," says Tertullian, addressing the Church 
of Rome, " which the Great Apostles fully im- 
pregnated with all their doctrine and all their 
blood." 



CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the 
bishop of Rome ? 

A. Yes ; all are bound to obey him as the 
vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the 
whole Christian Church. 

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission 
to the sovereign Pontiff? 

A. " Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, " the 
lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Al- 

14* 



162 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

mighty, and those who resist such authorities, 
bring condemnation on themselves." 

Q. Is it necessary that all Christian Churches 
be in stidct communion with the See of Rome ? 

A. So all the Fathers teach. St. Ireneus, 
lib. iii, cap. 3, says : " The Roman Church is 
the principal, and hence all other Churches 
must be united to her." St. Cyprian, lib. i, 
Epist. 8 — " There is only one God, one Christ, 
one Church, one chair of Peter, established by 
the Word of Christ himself." St. Jerom, 
Epist. to Pope Damasus — " I am attached to 
your chair, which is that of St. Peter, — I know 
that the Church is built upon that rock ;"' and 
again, " Whoever eats not the Lamb in that 
house, is profane ; whoever takes not refuge in 
that ark, shall perish in the waters of the deluge ; 
w r hoever is not with you, is against Jesus 
Christ ; whoever gathereth not with you, scat- 
tereth abroad." 

Q. Why is the Catholic Church called also 
Roman ? 

A. Because the Catholic Churches of all na- 
tions and ages have honored the See of Rome, 
and, on account of its " superior headship," have 
always gloried in the profession of their at- 
tachment to it. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 163 



ON THE INJURIOUS ASSERTION OF PROTEST- 
ANTS, THAT THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST. 

CHAPTER I. 

Q. Has this assertion any foundation in 
Scripture ? 

A. That the Antichrist will come before the 
end of the world, the Scripture abundantly 
proves ; but that the Pope is that Antichrist, is 
not only unscriptural, but antiscriptural. 

Q. Where in Scripture do you find the in- 
solent assertion refuted? 

A. In very many places. In Matth. xxiv, 
wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, false 
prophets, tribulation, such as hath never been, 
nor shall be, and all this before the abomination 
of desolation (the Antichrist) shall be seen 
standing in the holy place ; therefore, as these 
extraordinary scourges have not yet made their 
appearance, Antichrist has not yet come. In 
the same place, it is said, the Gospel shall be 
preached in the whole world, before the Anti- 
christ and the consummation come. But the 
Gospel has not yet been preached in the whole 
world ; therefore, the Antichrist has not yet 
come ; therefore the Popes, who have existed 
even since the time of Christ, cannot be the 
Antichrist. 



164 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Have you any other texts ? 

A. Yes ; texts in abundance. Daniel, chap, 
vii, connects the abomination of desolation, or 
the Antichrist, with the placing of thrones and 
the sitting in judgment of the Ancient of 
days. He gives power to the beast for a time, 
iimes, and half a time, or three years and a 
half, which exactly agrees with the period of 
his career fixed in the Apocalypse, (chap, xi,) 
forty-two months or twelve hundred and sixty 
days. Therefore, Antichrist's reign is to be 
only three and a half years, and these immedi- 
ately before the last judgment. But the Popes 
have reigned since the time of Christ ; therefore 
the Popes cannot be Antichrist. 

Q. What does the Apocalypse say, chap, xi ? 

A. That, during the above reign of Anti- 
christ, during twelve hundred and sixty days, 
Henoch and Elias will preach against him. 
But Henoch and Elias have not yet come ; 
therefore, neither has Antichrist. 

Q. What says ISth chap, of same Book? 

A. That Antichrist will mark on the right 
hand or forehead all his followers ; but the 
Pope has not done so ; therefore he is not 
Antichrist. Again, no man is to be allowed 
to buy or sell, but he that hath the character, 
or the name of the beast, or the number of his 
name. But Catholics have neither his charac- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 165 

ter, nor name, nor number, nor has the Pope 
prevented them from buying or selling ; there- 
fore, again, the Pope is not Antichrist. 

Q. What do you find in Apoc. xiii chap. ? 

A. That Antichrist is to open his mouth into 
blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name 
and his tabernacle and them that dwell in 
heaven. But the Pope has made God's holy- 
name honored and adored in every clime and 
at all times ; through him was the world con- 
verted to Christ ; it was he who converted all 
the Protestants from barbaric Paganism ; the 
Pope honors and venerates them that dwell in 
heaven, — 'tis Protestants who dishonor and 
blaspheme the angels and saints, them that dwell 
in heaven ; therefore the Pope, at least, is not 
Antichrist. The above text would go far to 
prove, that Antichrist is, or will be, a Protestant. 

Q. What remark do you make on Apocal. 
xvii, 7 ? 

A. It says : " The beast which thou sawest, 
was and is not, and shall come up out of the 
bottomless pit." But these words cannot be 
verified in any Pope ; therefore, the Pope is not 
Antichrist. 

Q. Is it clear from Scripture that Rome will 
be the seat of Antichrist ? 

A. No ; it is much more evident that Jeru- 
salem will be his seat. In the Gospel of St. 



166 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Matth. chap, xxiv, Christ speaks first of the 
temple of Jerusalem, and immediately after, 
connects this with the abomination of desolation 
to be seen standing in the holy place ; evidently 
pointing out that temple as the holy place where 
the beast should be enthroned : and this is clear- 
ly confirmed by the Apoc. chap, xi, 8, where, 
speaking of the wars to be carried on by Anti- 
christ, and of those that were to be slain by 
him, St. John says : " And their bodies shall lie 
in the streets of the great city, which is spirit- 
ually called Sodom and Egypt, where their 
Lord also was crucified." Now, the Lord 
was crucified in Jerusalem, not in Rome ; 
therefore Jerusalem, not Rome, will be the seat 
of Antichrist. See also, on this subject, 11th, 
12th, 13th, and 17th chaps, of Apocalypse. 



ON THE COUNCILS, 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. How many kinds of Councils are there ? 

A. Two kinds ; general and particular Coun- 
cils. 

Q. What is a general or ecumenical 
Council ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 167 

A. An assembly of bishops, to which all the 
bishops of the world are invited or summoned, 
presided over by the Pope, or his legates, or at 
least confirmed and approved by him. 

Q. What is a particular, national, or pro- 
vincial Council ? 

A. An assembly of bishops, to which are 
invited all the bishops of a nation or prov- 
ince. 

Q. Can a Council err in its decision on any 
matter of faith ? 

A. General or oecumenical Councils are in- 
fallible in matters of faith ; not so particular 
Councils. 

Q. Why do you say that a general Council 
is infallible ? 

A. Because, if a general Council erred in a 
matter of faith, the whole Church would be in 
error ; now this cannot be, because the gates 
of hell shall never prevail against the Church. 

Q. Why do you say the whole Church would 
err, if a general Council taught error ? 

A. Because the bishops assembled in a gen- 
eral Council represent the whole Church, and 
any error taught by them, is consequently an 
error of the whole Church. 

Q. In what light, then, are we to look on the 
decision of a general Council ? 

A. As the decision of the Holy Ghost. 



168 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. How does St. Peter speak at the first 
general Council ? Acts, chap, xv, 28. 

A. "It hath/' he says, "seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no farther bur- 
den upon you." 

Q. Is it a great sin to refuse submission to 
a general Council ? 

A. It is the greatest act of criminal pride 
and presumption, accompanied by the awful 
guilt of heresy or schism, or both. We call 
it extremely criminal, as well as irrational ; 
because the man who will not submit, prefers 
his own single opinion — and this in a matter, 
regarding which he is neither qualified nor 
authorized to judge — to the deliberately formed 
decision of an immense assemblage of the best 
qualified, and most competently authorized, le- 
gitimate judges. 

Q. May it not be said, that we are obliged 
to abide by the decisions of a general Council, 
only when these are in accordance with the 
Word of God? 

A. This is a mere piece of sophistry ; it sup- 
poses that the Church may teach what is op- 
posed to God's Word. Now, this is impossible ; 
for in that case, God must have failed in his 
word, — his Holy Spirit, as he promised, would 
not have taught his Church all truth for ever, 
— the gates of hell would have prevailed against 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 169 

her. God did not tell the world to be guided 
by what they thought conformable to the Scrip- 
ture, — He sent his pastors to teach all nations, 
and told the nations, that he who would not 
believe these should be condemned. 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. How many general Councils have been 
held? 

A, Besides that held by the Apostles and 
first Pastors of the Church, eighteen others 
have been held. 

Q. Where and when were the four first 
general Councils held 1 

A. The first at Nice in 325, the second at 
Constantinople in 381, the third at Ephesus in 
431, the fourth at Chalcedon in 451. 

Q. How many general Councils were held 
at Constantinople ? 

A. Four in all ; in the years 381, 553, 680, 
869, respectively. 

Q. How many at Rome ? 

A. Four; in the years 1123, 1139, 1179, 
1215. 

Q. How many at Nice ? 

A. Two ; the first in 325, the second in 787. 

Q. How many at Lyons ? 

A. Two ; one in 1245, the other in 1274. 

15 



170 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A general Council was held at Vienne in 1311 ; 
one at Florence in 1439 ; one at Constance in 
1414. 

Q. What was the last general Council ? 

A. The Council of Trent. 

Q. Why do you place that of Trent amongst 
the general Coun&ils ? 

A. Because all the bishops of the Christian 
world were invited to it ; the Pope by his le- 
gates presided over it, and confirmed its de- 
cisions. 

Q. How many ecclesiastical dignitaries at- 
tended it ? 

A. There were six Cardinals, three Patri- 
archs, thirty-two Archbishops, and two hundred 
and twenty-eight Bishops. 

Q. Were the Lutheran and Calvinist minis- 
ters invited to assist at it ? 

A. Yes ; they were entreated to attend, and 
every safe-conduct they could desire offered 
them ; it was their own fault that they were 
not present. 

Q. Are Protestants bound to obey the de- 
cisions of this Council of Trent ? 

A. Certainly ; because these decisions ema- 
nated from the lawfully constituted judges of 
the true Church of Christ. 

Q. Who are the lawful judges of Christian 
doctrine ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 171 

A. Only the bishops of the true Church, who 
have been appointed by Christ for that purpose. 

Q. Repeat the words of St. Paul to the 
ancients or bishops of the Church. Acts 
xx, 28. 

A. " Take heed to yourselves, and to the 
whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath 
placed you bishops to RULE the Church of 
God." 

Q. What remarks do you make on this pas- 
sage ? 

A. The bishops are under the guidance of 
the Holy Ghost to rule or govern the Church ; 
this they could not do, unless they were quali- 
fied to distinguish, with the utmost certainty, 
good from bad doctrine. 



ON THE OBEDIENCE DUE TO THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Are we obliged to obey the Church ? 

A. Yes ; because our Saviour says, Matth. 
chap, xviii, 17 : " If he will not hear the Church, 
let him be to thee as the heathen and the 
publican." 



172 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What does Christ say to the pastors of 
the Church? Luke, chap, x, 16. 

A. " He that heareth you, heareth me ; and 
he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; and he 
that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." 

Q. What says St. Paul ? Heb. chap, xiii, 17. 

A. " Obey your prelates, and be subject to 
them ; for they watch, as being to render an 
account for your souls." 

Q. Are we bound, in conscience, to obey the 
ecclesiastical, as well as the civil powers ? 

A. Yes ; because both are instituted by the 
appointment of God. St. Paul, Rom. xiii, 1, 2, 3, 
&c, — " Let every soul be subject to higher 
powers ; for there is no power but from God ; 
and those that are, are ordained of God ; there- 
fore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God ; and they that resist pur- 
chase to themselves damnation,. . ..wherefore 
be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but 
also for conscience sake" 

Q. What follows from these passages ? 

A. That we are obliged to obey the civil 
authorities, and to observe the commandments 
of the Church. 

Q. But are not the commandments of the 
Church the mere commandments of men ? 

A. True ; but we are obliged to keep the 
commandments of men, when God ordains it ; 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 173 

for example, the command of a father, or a 
magistrate, is only the commandment of man ; 
yet we are bound to observe both, because God 
so ordains ; thus also are we bound to obey the 
Church, because it is the command of God that 
we should do so. 

Q. Does not Christ say, Matth. chap, xv, 
9 : "In vain do they worship me, teaching 
doctrines and commandments of men ?" 

A. Yes ; but Christ speaks here of vain and 
useless human commandments, not in accord- 
ance with, but opposed to, his law. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. To what purpose are the commandments 
of the Church? 

A. They serve to lead us to the better ob- 
servance of the commandments of God. Thus 
the law of God ordains, that we render to him 
the worship that is due to him, — that we should 
fast and confess our sins, and receive the holy 
communion ; but the law of God does not tell 
us how, or when, or how often, it is necessary 
to perform these acts of religion ; he has left 
it to the Church to settle these matters of de- 
tail. 

Q. Has the Church any right to appoint 
feast-days ? 

15* 






174 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. The Christian Church has surely a right, 
which even the Jewish Church possessed. 

Q. Where do you find, in the Old Testa- 
ment, feasts of precept instituted by the syna- 
gogue ? 

A. In the Book of Esther, chap. 9th ; and in 
the last chapter of the Book of Judith. 

Q. Have you any other way of proving that 
the Church has power to institute festivals of 
precept ? 

A. Had she not such power, she could not 
have done that in which all modern religionists 
agree with her ; — she could not have substituted 
the observance of Sunday the first day of the 
week, for the observance of Saturday the sev- 
enth day, a change for which there is no Scrip- 
tural authority. 

Q,. Has the Church power to appoint days 
of fasting ? 

A. Certainly ; for St. Augustine, one of the 
bishops of the early and confessedly pure Church, 
taxed Aerius with heresy, for having disputed 
that right. 

A. Can the Church forbid us the use of 
certain kinds of food on particular days ? 

A. Yes ; for she did so even in the time of 
the Apostles, Acts xv, 29 — " That you abstain 
from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, 
and from things strangled." 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 175 

Q. If the Christians of these times had used 
these forbidden meats, would they have commit- 
ted sin ? 

A. Certainly ; because, in that case, they 
would have violated a commandment of the 
Church. 

Q. May not Protestants say, that that which 
entereth by the mouth defileth not the man ? 

A. Yes ; but we reply it is not the meat, it 
is the disobedience, which renders the man un- 
clean ; and we ask them, where did Adam and 
Eve put the fatal apple ? Besides, in the pas- 
sage alluded to, Matth. xv, 11, Christ is speak- 
ing, not of food taken in opposition to a precept 
of his Church, but merely of food taken with 
unwashed hands. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. Why does the Church forbid certain 
meats on particular days ? 

A. Not that in these meats there is any 
thing unclean, but to chastise and mortify the 
body. 

Q. Were there not some heretics in ancient 
times, who termed certain kinds of food unclean 
and the creatures of the devil? 

A. Yes ; the Marcionites and Manicheans ; 
and this doctrine of theirs is styled by the 
Apostle the doctrine of the devil. 






176 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Is it a very ancient Christian 'practice 
to abstain from the use of flesh meat two days 
in the week 1 

A. Yes ; this practice commenced with Chris- 
tianity itself; for St. Epiphanius, in his Cate- 
chetical Instructions, says : " An Apostolic law 
has ordained a fast of two days in the week." 

Q. Were Friday and Saturday the two days 
of abstinence always observed over the whole 
Christian Church ? 

A. No ; in some places the Wednesday and 
Friday were the days observed ; and as to 
these disciplinary portions of Christian doc- 
trine, it is proper, as St. Jerome remarks, to 
conform to the usages of the Church where we 
may happen to dwell. 

Q. Why have the Greeks appointed Wednes- 
days and Fridays, as their days of abstinence ? 

A. Because Christ was sold or betrayed on 
Wednesday, and put to death on Friday. 

Q. Why does the Western or Latin Church 
observe Friday and Saturday 1 

A, In honor of the death and burial of Jesus 
Christ. 

Q. Does not the Apostle blame the Colossians 
for saying : " Touch not, taste not, handle 
not;" and again: "Let no man therefore 
judge you in meat or in drink ?" — Coloss. chap, 
ii, 16. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 177 

A. The Apostle is speaking here of the Jew- 
ish distinctions between meats ; they consider- 
ed some meats in themselves clean and others 
unclean ; it is this false and superstitious no- 
tion, as well as other abrogated Jewish ob- 
servances, that the Apostle here condemns ; 
and this is quite evident from the words imme- 
diately following those above quoted : " Let 
no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, 
or in respect of a festival day, or of the new 

MOON, OR OF THE SABBATHS." 

Q. Does he not say, 2d Cor. iii, 17 : " Where 
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ?" 

A. Why, this text may be quoted with as 
good a grace to throw off the whole law of 
God. " Liberty ;" yes ; but a rational and re- 
ligious liberty consistent with the obligations 
and duties of one bound to observe the laws of 
Christ. " Free" as St. Peter says, " as free, 
and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, 
but as the servants of God." — 1 Peter, chap, 
ii, 16. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Who established Lent ? 
A. The Apostles. 
Q. How do you prove this ? 
A, Firstly, by the rule of St. Augustine ; 
and, secondly, by the testimony of the Fathers. 



178 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What is St Augustine's rule ? (Epist. 
18th.) 

A. " Every practice received by the whole 
Church, whose origin cannot be traced to any 
bishop, or Pope, or Council, must be regarded 
as an Apostolical institution" Now Lent has 
been observed in all Christian ages and nations, 
and cannot be traced to any merely human 
source posterior to the time of the Apostles ; 
therefore it was instituted by the Apostles. 

Q. What do you reply to those who say it 
was invented by the Council of Nice ? 

A. That this cannot be true ; for Tertullian 
and Origen, who lived before that Council, 
make mention of it in their writings. 

Q. Do you know any Father who has ex- 
pressly declared that Lent was instituted by 
the Apostles ? 

A. Yes ; St. Jerom and St. Leo declare it 
formally ; the former, Epist. ad Marcel., says : 
" Following the Apostolical institution, we ob- 
serve a fast of forty days ;" the latter, Serm. 9 
de Jejun — " It was the Apostles, who, by the 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, established Lent." 

Q. Were people, in these times, obliged in 
conscience to fast during Lent? 

A. Yes ; for St. Jerom, Epist. ad Marcel., 
says : " The Montanists fast three Lents in the 
year ; we fast only one. That they observe 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 179 

three is a voluntary act of their own ; but we 
observe one, because we are obliged." St. Au- 
gustine says : " Our fast at any other time is 
voluntary ; but during Lent, we sin if we do 
not fast." 

CHAPTER Y. 

Q. Why did the Apostles institute the fast 
of Lent ? 

A. First, in honor of our Saviour's fast of 
forty days ; secondly, in honor of his passion ; 
and, thirdly, to prepare ourselves, in the spirit 
of mortification, for the better celebration of 
the Easter solemnity. 

Q. In what mariner should Lent be observed 1 

A. We ought to attend in this to the Lenten 
Instructions of our respective bishops ; to ab- 
stain from the use of flesh meat on the days its 
use is prohibited ; to take only one meal about 
noon, and a slight collation in the evening. 
The sick are under no restrictions, when the 
nature of the disease requires a relaxation of 
the law ; and if a sufficient reason be given to 
the lawful superior, the collation may be taken 
in the morning. 

Q. Are all Christians bound to fast? 

A. No ; various classes are exempted ; 1st, 
all under twenty-one years of age ; 2dly, all 
the aged who can be prudently deemed too 



180 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

weak to fast ; 3dly, women with child and 
nurses ; 4thly, all that are engaged in heavy 
and laborious employments ; and, 5thly, the 
poor, who are never certain of sufficient and 
regular food. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Q. What should a Catholic reply to those 
who scoff and rail at fasting and abstinence ? 

A. He should tell them, that those who will 
not hear the Church, are declared, by Christ 
himself, to be as heathens or publicans. He 
should repeat to them the words of St. Augus- 
tine — " It is an impudent folly to blame that 
which is practised by the whole Church." 

Q. Upon whom does this reproach fall with 
full force ? 

A. Upon Luther, in an especial manner, 
who blamed fasting, although practised over 
the whole Church. 

Q. Can you prove, by any Scriptural ex- 
ample, that Catholics do well to abstain from 
certain kinds of food ? 

A. Yes; the prophet Jeremias praised the 
Rechabites for abstaining from wine, because 
Jonadab, their father, had forbidden them the 
use of it ; hence, the Catholics cannot do evil 
by abstaining from any particular food, when 
the Church, their mother, orders them to do so. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 181 

Q. In what manner can we show a Protest- 
ant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts 
and abstinences ? 

A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not 
Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwil- 
ling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, 
that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sun- 
day, but says nothing as to fasting and absti- 
nence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday 
or the Sabbath, but gives no command any- 
where regarding Sunday or the first day of the 
week. If, then, he neglects Saturday as a day 
of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in 
its place, and this merely because such was the 
usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if 
he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting 
and abstinence, because the ancient Church so 
ordained ? 



ON THE SACRAMENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q,. How do you prove that there are seven 
sacraments ? 

A. From the Holy Scripture and the dog- 
matical decisions, as well as the constant tra* 
ditions, of the Church. 

16 



182 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 



Q. Where do you find in Scripture that 
there are seven Sacraments ? 

A. We find in Scripture seven outward 
signs of invisible grace, instituted by Jesus 
Christ, as so many means to confer grace on 
our souls ; this is easily shown of each sacra- 
ment in particular. 

Q. Do all Catholics profess that there are 
seven sacraments ? 

A. Yes ; all the Catholics in the world, in 
number about two hundred and fifty-six millions, 
believe in seven sacraments. 

Q. Do the Greek schismatics recognise the 
same number ? 

A. Yes ; all the Greek schismatics recognise 
the same number of sacraments as the Catholic 
Church, and these schismatics are in number 
about fifty-six and a half millions ; so that three 
hundred and twelve millions and a half — that 
is, nearly the half of the whole human race — 
hold the Catholic faith on this subiect ; whilst 
the whole Protestant population of the world, 
opposed to it, only amount to about forty-six 
millions. Jeremias, the schismatical Greek 
Patriarch of Constantinople, declared the belief 
of the schismatical Greek Church in the seven 
sacraments, anno 1576; and others have re- 
peated that declaration at various times since 
that period. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 183 

Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 

A. That the whole Christian world, morally 
speaking, do now believe, and have at all times 
believed, in seven sacraments ; for had the 
seven sacraments been a modern invention, the 
Greek schismatical Church, which has been 
separated from us for nine hundred years, would 
not have had these sacraments, in number and 
nature, just as we have them. 

Q. Have Protestants been always agreed as 
to the number of the sacraments ? 

A. No ; some admitted two — baptism, and 
what they call the Lord's Supper; others ad- 
mitted four and even five, and some admitted 
only three, as is evident from the Confession 
of Augsburg, Apol. art. 7, which says expressly, 
that " penance is a sacrament in the proper 
sense of the word." 

Q. What inference would a man of reflection 
draw from these Protestant inconsistencies ? 

A. That Protestants were compelled to 
frame their religion, not according to Holy 
Writ, but according to the corrupt maxims of 
their followers ; — the question with their found- 
ers was, not what does Christ teach, but what 
will our partisans receive as doctrine from our 
hands. Hence, they taught one doctrine to-day 
and another to-morrow, one doctrine in this 
country, and another in that, in order to suit 



184 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

themselves and their religion to the changes of 
time, place, and passion. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. Can Protestants prove to Baptists, that 
the baptism of infants is good and useful ? 

A. No ; they cannot ; because, according to 
Protestant principles, such baptism is useless. 

Q. Why do you say this ? 

A. One of the Protestant principles is, that 
no human being can be justified, except by an 
act of faith in Jesus Christ ; but no infant is 
capable of making this act of faith ; therefore, 
upon Protestant principles, the baptism of in- 
fants is useless. 

Q. Can you draw the same consequence 
from any other principle ? 

A. Yes ; their first principle is, that nothing 
is to be practised, which is not authorized 
by Scriptural example ; but it does not appear 
from Scripture, that even one infant was ever 
baptized ; therefore Protestants should reject, 
on their own principle, infant baptism as an 
unscriptural usage. 

Q. How do Baptists treat other Protestants ? 

A. They boast that the Scripture is evident- 
ly for Baptist practice, — that other Protestants 
hold traditional doctrines, like the Catholics. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 185 

They quote Matth. chap, xxviii — "Go teach 
all nations, baptizing them/' from which they 
say, it is clear, that teaching should go before 
baptism ; hence, they conclude, that as infants 
cannot be taught, so neither should they be 
baptized, until they are capable of teaching or 
instruction. 

Q. What use do they make of Mark, chap, 
xvi — " He who believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved ?" 

A. They say it is evident that belief or faith 
must precede baptism ; but, they add, children 
or infants are not capable of believing ; there- 
fore neither are they capable of being baptized. 

Q. What can Protestants reply to this Bap- 
tist reasoning ? 

A. They may give these passages another 
meaning, but they can never prove that their 
interpretation is better than that of the Bap- 
tists, because they themselves give every one 
a right to interpret Scripture. 

Q. What inference do you draw from this? 

A. That every Protestant has much reason 
to doubt whether he be baptized. 

Q. How do Catholics prove that infants 
ought to be baptized ? 

A. Not from Scripture alone, which is not 
clear on this subject, but from the Scripture 
illustrated by the constant tradition of the 

16* 



186 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Church, which, in every age, administered bap- 
tism to infants, and consequently the practice 
must have been derived from the Apostles. 

Q. Can Protestants use this triumphant 
argument of tradition against the Baptists? 

A. No ; they have no right to use it in this 
matter, where it would serve them, since they 
reject it in every question where it is opposed 
to their novel and lately invented doctrines. 

Q. What is the outward or visible sign in 
baptism ? 

A. The pouring of water on the person, and 
the words, " I baptize thee/' &c, pronounced 
by the minister. 

Q. What is the inward or invisible grace 
conferred ? 

A. The sanctifying grace of God, by which 
the soul is regenerated, cleansed from all sin, 
made the child of God, a member of his Church, 
and an heir of heaven. 

Q. Where do you find, in Scripture, that 
Christ instituted baptism ? 

A. In many places, but particularly in the 
passage where he gives his commission to the 
Apostles, Matth. xxviii, 19 — " Go teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

Q. Does it appear from Scripture that bap- 
tism remits sin ? 



A DOCTRINAI* CATECHISM. 187 

A. Yes ; St. Peter, Acts ii, 28. says : " Do 
penance, and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
your sins." 

Q. Is baptism necessary to salvation ? 

A. Yes ; for Christ says, John iii, 3, 5 : 
" Verily, verily, I say to thee, except a man be 
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" and 
in Mark, chap, xvi — " He that believeth and is 
baptized, shall be saved." 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. Why do you consider Confirmation one 
of the sacraments ? 

A. Because it is a visible sign of invisible 
grace. 

Q. What is the visible sign in Confirmation? 

A. The unction of Holy Chrism, and the 
imposition of the hands of the bishop. 

Q. What is the invisible grace conferred by 
this sacrament ? 

A, A grace of the Holy Ghost, which 
strengthens and secures the faith of the Chris- 
tian. 

Q. Where do you find Confirmation men- 
tioned in Scripture ? 

A. In the 8th chap, of the Acts, it is said, 



188 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that the Samaritans, having received the Word 
of God, were baptized by St. Philip ; and the 
Apostles " sent unto them Peter and John, who, 
when they were come, prayed for them, that 
they might receive the Holy Ghost, for he was 
not as yet come upon any of them, but they 
were only baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, 
and they received the Holy Ghost/' Here we 
have a sacred rite performed by the Apostles 
themselves, by the imposition of hands, which 
certainly is not ordination, as some have dream- 
ed • for, as is evident from a previous verse of 
the same chapter, there were women amongst 
those upon whom the Apostles imposed their 
hands. Neither can it be baptism ; for the 
text expressly says, that these Samaritans were 
previously baptized by St. Philip. Therefore it 
is that sacrament of Confirmation, which, by 
the universal testimony of the whole Christian 
Church, was instituted by Christ, and practised, 
in this instance, by his Apostles. 

Q. Have you any other Scriptural proof 
showing this sacrament as completely distinct 
from baptism ? 

A. Yes ; St. Paul first baptized and then 
confirmed the Ephesians, — Acts, chap, xix, 5 : 
" Having heard these things, they were bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; and when 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 189 

Paul had imposed his hands upon them, the 
Holy Ghost came upon them." 

Q. May it not be said, that the Apostles im- 
posed their hands on these occasions to com- 
municate the external and visible gifts of the 
Holy Ghost, but that bishops have no such 
power novo ? 

A. The external or visible gifts of the Holy 
Spirit, such as the gift of tongues or prophecy, 
were, in the time of the Apostles, necessary for 
the conversion of the world, as direct proofs 
that God was the author of their religion ; but 
now that the world has abundant arguments 
and proofs for that great fundamental truth, 
miracles are no longer necessary, but the grace 
of God — communicated along with these mi- 
raculous gifts, which strengthened the first 
Christians unto perfection, and enabled them 
to lay down, even with joy, their lives rather 
than deny their faith — has been necessary in 
every age to all Christians, is still necessary, 
and will continue so until the end of the world ; 
and it is this invisible grace of the Holy Ghost 
which is communicated in Confirmation. 

Q. What have you to say to Protestants on 
this sacrament ? 

A. You appeal, we say to them, incessantly 
to Scripture, — you boast that you comply with 
it to the very letter, — why is it, then, that only 



190 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

a mere handful of you practise this sacred rite ? 
Why do you not, as the Apostles did, impose 
your hands upon those whom you have bap- 
tized ? 

Q. Are there any proofs for Confirmation in 
the practice of the ancient and pure Church? 

A. Yes ; St. Cyril, 3 Cathes., says : " When 
the body is visibly anointed, the soul becomes 
sanctified by the interior operation of the Holy 
Spirit." St. Augustine, Lit. contra Petel. lib. 
iii, cap. 10, says : " The sacrament of Holy 
Chrism does not yield in sanctity to baptism 
itself." 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Is the Holy Eucharist a sacrament ? 

A. Yes ; all parties admit this, even those 
who look upon it as merely bread and wine. 

Q. What is the sensible sign in this sacra- 
ment ? 

A. The appearances of bread and wine which 
remain after consecration, and under which our 
blessed Saviour is received into our souls. 

Q. What is the inward grace contained in 
this sacrament ? 

A. The body and blood of Jesus Christ, the 
source and author of all grace. 

Q. Where do you find Jesus Christ men- 
tioned as the author of this sacrament ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 191 

A. In the Gospel account of its institution, 
— Luke xxii, 19, &c, where Jesus Christ, 
" taking bread, gave thanks, and brake, and 
gave it to them, saying : this is my body ; do 
this for a commemoration of me. In like 
manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, 
saying : this is the chalice of the new testa- 
ment in my blood, which shall be shed for 

you." 

Q. What does the Catholic Church believe 
as to this sacrament ? 

A. That after the words of consecration are 
pronounced over the bread and wine, our Lord 
Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, 
really, and substantially contained under the 
outward appearances of the bread and wine, — 
the whole substance of the bread being changed 
into his body, and the whole substance of the 
wine into his blood ; we understand also, not 
his body and blood as they were in this world, 
but as they are now glorious and immortal in 
heaven. 

Q. What do you mean by a glorious and 
immortal body ? 

A. I mean that kind of body of which St. 
Paul speaks, — 1 Cor. xv, 44 : " It is sown a 
natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body ; if 
there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual 
body." 



192 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Do the Greeks hold the same doctrine as 
the Catholics on this subject 1 

A. Yes ; in their attestation, signed by seven 
Eastern Archbishops, (Perpet. de la Foi., torn, 
iii, p. 412, &c.,) we read : " 1st, That the living 
body of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, who 
ascended into heaven, and who sits at the right 
hand of the Father, is truly present in the 
Eucharist, but in an invisible manner ; 2dly, 
that the bread and wine, after the invocation 
of the priest and the consecration, are sub- 
stantially changed into the true body and blood 
of Jesus Christ, and that the accidents which 
remain are not bread and wine in reality, al- 
though they appear to be bread and wine ; 
3dly, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the 
living and the dead, established by Jesus Christ, 
and which we have from the Apostles by tra- 
dition ; 4thly, that the body of Jesus Christ is 
eaten whole and entire, in an impassible state, 
by those who receive it, whether they be wor- 
thy or unworthy, — such as are worthy receive 
it for their salvation, the unworthy to their 
condemnation ; that it is also immolated with- 
out effusion of blood, and justly adored as God." 

Q. Was not the celebrated Calvinist, Claude, 
staggered by this Eastern document ? 

A. So much so, that he wrote to verify the 
fact ; and we have the celebrated letter in an- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 193 

swer to him, dated May 21, 1672, confirming 
every word of the above document, in the 
clearest and strongest language, as containing 
the faith of the Eastern Church on the subject 
of the Eucharist. See Perp. de la Foi, already 
quoted, torn. iii. 

Q. What did Luther teach on this subject ? 

A. " In vain I wished/' he says, " to have 
denied the real presence of Christ in the Eu- 
charist, .... the words of the Scripture are so 
plain and strong in favor of the mystery, that, 
spite of all my wishes, although I strained 
every nerve to reject it, yet I could never 
bring my mind to adopt the bold expedient." 
(Ep. Car. Amic.) Again he says : " The denial 
of the real presence is a piece of downright 
blasphemy, an impeachment of the Divine ve- 
racity ;".... and he calls the deniers, " a set 
of deviled, be-deviled, per-deviled, and super- 
deviled wretches." 

Q. What is the real doctrine of even the 
Church of England on this sacrament ? 

A. In the Book of Common Prayer, we 
find the following question, " What is the in- 
ward part or thing signified ?" (of the Lord's 
Supper.) The answer is : " The body and 
blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed 
taken, and received by the faithful in the 
Lord's Supper." 

17 



194 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What says Leibnitz ? Systema Theol., 
page 226 : Paris, 1819. 

A. " But pious antiquity plainly enough de- 
clared, that the bread was changed into the 
body of Christ, the wine into his blood, .... and 
this change the Latins have rightly called Tran- 
substantiation, . . . . here the Scripture is to be 
explained by that tradition, which the Church, 
as its keeper, has transmitted to us." 

Q. What says Groiius ? Vot. pro pace. 

A. " I find in all the Liturgies — Greek, Latin, 
Arabic, Syriac, and others — prayers addressed 
to God, that, by his Holy Spirit, he would 
consecrate the gifts offered up, and make them 
the bodv of his Son. I was therefore right in 
asserting, that a practice so ancient and uni- 
versal must be considered as having come 
down from the first ages, and ought not to have 
been altered'' 

Q. What says Dr. Parker, Protestant Bishop 
of Oxford ? (Reasons for Abrogating the Test, 
p. 13, anno 1688.) 

A. " It is evident to all men that are but or- 
dinarily conversant in ecclesiastical learning, 
that the ancient Fathers, from age to age, as- 
serted the real and substantial presence in very 
high and expressive terms." Indeed, almost 
all the learned bishops of the English Protest- 
ant Church are of the same opinion on this 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 195 

matter. And no one can doubt, that a large 
section of that Church at present are as much 
Catholic, as the Catholics themselves, on the 
subject of the Real Presence. (See the Modern 
Puseyite writers.) 

Q. What inference do you draw from this 
powerful testimony in favor of the real pres- 
ence ? 

A. That this portion of Catholic doctrine 
has the support of every Church deserving the 
name ; that its opponents are few, generally 
ignorant, and always factious and full of sec- 
tarian prejudice. Hence, from the number 
and learning of the vouchers for the CatholiG 
faith here under discussion, it is manifest, that 
that faith must be strongly and clearly laid 
down in Scripture. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Did Christ make any particular prom- 
ise, as regards the Eucharist, before he in- 
stituted it ? 

A. Yes ; a very clear promise, in the sixth 
chap, of St. John. 

Q. Does this chapter regard the Eucharist ? 

A. Yes ; even the learned Mr. Johnson, a 
Protestant, in his " Unbloody Sacrifice/' shows, 
at large, that the Primitive Fathers understood 



196 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the sixth chapter of St. John as referring to 
the Eucharist. 

Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the first 
part of this chapter ? 

A. Yes ; the astonishing miracle which 
Christ performed in feeding five thousand per- 
sons with only five loaves and two fishes, is 
here related ; and such a miracle was truly a 
suitable prelude to the introduction of that 
miracle of miracles — the Holy Eucharist, by 
which he was, with heavenly bread — that is, 
with his own body and blood — to feed all his 
faithful followers. The very fact that he 
wrought this astonishing miracle, before intro- 
ducing the subject of the Eucharist, shows that 
he was about to speak on a matter that required 
strong faith in his followers and audience. If 
he had merely to announce to them that he 
was going to give them common bread and 
wine, is it likely he would have introduced it 
by such a tremendous miracle ? 

Q. Does it appear that the Jews had, before 
the teaching of Christ, any notion that the 
Messiah would give them bread from heaven, 
as Moses had done ? 

A. Yes ; for in one of their earliest Works 
after the coming of Christ, " Commentary on 
the Book of Ecclesiastes," they say, that as 
Moses brought down manna from heaven, so 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 197 



one of the signs of the Messiah should be, that 
he should bring down bread from heaven. 
Various Jewish teachers in the early ages of 
Christianity, according to R. David Kimchi, 
seem to have admitted transubstantiation, 
grounding it on that passage of Osee, chap, xiv, 
8 : " And they shall live upon wheat, and they 
shall blossom as a vine ; his memorial shall be 
as the vine of Lebanon." " Many Doctors," 
says David Kimchi, " expound this text, that 
there shall be made a change of nature in 
wheat in the times of our Redeemer Christ." 

Q. Does Christ himself appear to allude to 
this belief of the Jews ? 

A. Yes, in very clear terms, — John, chap, 
vi. 32 : " Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses 
gave you not bread from heaven ; but my Fa- 
ther giveth you the true bread from heaven." 

Q. What does Christ say that this bread 
from heaven is ? 

A. In verse 35, he says, it is himself: " I am 



the bread of life." 



Q. What follows these astonishing words ? 

A. A long and impressive instruction as to 
the necessity of believing his words, which 
show T s clearly, that he was about to reveal 
something which he knew his audience would 
have great difficulty in believing. 

Q. After ending the instruction as to faith 
17* 



198 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

with these impressive words, — " Amen, amen, I 
say to you, he that believeth in me hath ever- 
lasting life," — how does he proceed ? 

A. He repeats again, verse 48, the awful 
words : "lam the bread of life," as if he saw 
they would now be believed, in consequence of 
the instruction he had given. 

Q. Does he show, that the bread which he 
will give, shall be better than the miraculous 
manna, and, consequently, better than the bread 
and wine of the Protestant sacrament ? 

A. Yes ; he says : " Your fathers did eat 
manna in the desert, and are dead; this is the 
bread which cometh down from heaven, that 
if any man eat of it, he may not die" 

CHAPTER VI. 

Q. After having prepared the minds of his 
audience by feeding five thousand persons with 
five loaves, and lectured them on the necessity 
of strong and lively faith, — after having re- 
peated, again, that he himself was the bread of 
life from heaven, — what does he now say that 
this bread is in reality ? 

A. Verse 52, he says : " The bread that I 
will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." 

Q. How did the Jews receive this announce- 
ment ? 






A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 199 

A. Verse 53 : — " They strove among them- 
selves, saying, How can this man give us his 
flesh to eat ?" This is exactly the question 
put, at the present day, by unbelieving Protest- 
ants. " How ? ! !" To put such a question to 
the Almighty, is it not blasphemy ? How did 
he create the world out of nothing ? How did 
he turn the rod of Moses into a serpent ? How 
did he change the waters into blood ? How 
the water into wine at Cana ? How feed five 
thousand people with five loaves ? 

Q. If he had meant, that what he was to give 
them was mere bread and mere wine, what 
should he, as a good and wise God, have 
done now that he saw the Jews would not 
believe him ? 

A. He should at once have explained, (as he 
did on other occasions,) that he did not wish to 
be understood literally, but figuratively, — that 
he meant to give them bread and wine as a 
commemoration of his death. 

Q. Did he give such an explanation ? 

A. No ; he repeats, verse 54, the same again 
in stronger language, and even with an asseve- 
ration : " Then Jesus said to them, Amen, 
amen, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh 
of the Son of man and drink his blood, you 
shall not have life in you ;" and, in the next 
five verses, in order to give strength to his 



200 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

words, and to leave no doubt of his meaning 
on the mind of any one, he, in different forms, 
but almost in the same words, repeats over 
and over the same truth without any explana- 
tion whatever. 

Q. When, on other occasions, Christ taught 
any thing in figurative language, was he in the 
habit of giving an explanation immediately 
after, lest his words might be misunderstood, 
and lest the people might be misled by his 
figurative language, by interpreting his words 
literally 1 

A. Most certainly he was. In John, chap, 
iii, he corrects Nicodemus, who understood him 
literally, when he wished to be understood 
figuratively. In Matth. chap, xvi, 5, he cor- 
rects the Apostles, who understood him literally, 
when he meant to speak figuratively, on the 
Leaven of the Pharisees. In John, chap, iv, 
32, his disciples misunderstood him as to the 
food he spoke of, taking him in the literal sense ; 
he instantly corrects the error by explaining 
himself. In John, chap, xi, 11, his disciples 
again mistake him, and he instantly explains. 
In Matth. chap, xix, there is another misunder- 
standing on the part of his disciples, and he at 
once sets them right. Another instance may 
be seen in Matth. chap. viii. 

Q. Did the Jews, the Apostles, and the dis- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 201 

ciples of Jesus, understand him here in the lit- 
eral sense ? 

A. Yes ; for the Jews ask, How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat ? Verse 62 — " His 
disciples murmured" Verse 67 — " After this, 
many of his disciples went back and walked no 
more with him ;" whilst he finds it necessary, 
in verse 68, to ask his Apostles, — " Will you 
also go V 

Q. Seeing, then, that all are about to leave 
him, — that they are scandalized at his doctrine, 
— that they do not believe him in the literal 
sense, does he, on this, as on every other occa- 
sion, explain himself at once, and show them, 
that he speaks in figures, that he does not in- 
tend to give them his flesh and his blood in 
reality, but merely bread and wine, as a com- 
memoration of himself ? 

A. No ; he sees that the Jews, the disciples, 
and the twelve Apostles, xuid erst and him in 
the very sense w r hich he intended. He allows 
them to go away, he gives no explanation, be- 
cause he has none to give. They understand 
him literally, and he speaks literally. He ap- 
peals to his Ascension, as an argument which 
should induce them to believe, (verse 63.) In 
verse 64, he clearly tells them, that the eating 
of dead flesh will profit them nothing, but that 
the flesh which he will give them is his glorified 



202 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

body, animated by his soul and his life-giving 
divinity, — that same body, soul, and divinity, 
by which, in the mystery of Redemption, he 
was to give life to the world. He exhorts them 
again to have faith, showing that he was teach- 
ing something which it was difficult to believe ; 
and concludes, by asking his Apostles, whether 
they also refuse to believe him : To which St. 
Peter replies, (verse 69,) with full confidence in 
his Divine Master : " Lord, to whom shall we 
go ? thou hast the words of eternal life, . . . .thou 
art Christ the Son of God." 

Q. What general inference would you draw 
from the conduct of those to whom Christ ad- 
dressed himself on this occasion ? 

A. If Christ intended only to give bread 
and wine, as a memorial of himself, why did 
he not say so to prevent the departure of his 
followers, and to teach them truth ? Or can 
any one in his senses suppose, that the author 
of truth would leave, in doubt and obscurity, 
one of the most important articles of the reli- 
gion he was about to establish? Assuredly 
no. Then he spoke in the literal sense, — then 
he washed to be understood in the literal sense, 
— then the Jews, the disciples, and the Apos- 
tles, understood him correctly. The Jews and 
disciples left him, because they would not be- 
lieve that he could give them his flesh and 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 203 

blood. But the Apostles, who knew that he 
was God, to whom nothing was impossible, 
who could not be deceived himself, and could 
not deceive them, submitted to the belief of 
the incomprehensible mystery, in these words : 
" Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
words of eternal life ;" we believe all that thou 
hast taught, no matter how difficult, because 
" we have believed and have known, That 

THOU ART THE CHRIST THE SoN OF GoD." 

Q. If Christ intended to be understood in 
the figurative sense, and meant only to give 
bread and wine, would there have been any 
reason why all his audience should have turned 
their backs upon him ? 

A. Certainlv not ; since such memorial would 
have been inferior both to the manna and Pas- 
chal Lamb of the Old Law. 

Q. If Christ intended only mere bread and 
wine, was it not an awful violation of the 
propriety of language to say, that, in using 
these, his followers would be eating his flesh 
and drinking his blood ? 

A. Yes, most certainly ; such as we can 
never suppose the wisdom of God could adopt ; 
nay more, such language was well calculated 
to deter the Jews from believing his doctrine 
at all, because, in their language, to eat the 
flesh of any one, meant to do him some grievous 



204 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 



injury, (see 27th Psalm ; 19th chap, of Job ; 
Ecclesiastes, chap, iv ; St. James, chap, v.) 
As to the drinking of blood, it was universally- 
considered a dreadful crime among the Jews, 
(see Gen. chap, ix ; Levit. chap, vii ; Sam. 
chap, xiv ; Judith, chap, xi.) And as to the 
eating of human flesh, or drinking human blood, 
it is mentioned as the most dreadful curse God 
could inflict on mankind, (see Wisd. xi, 7 ; 
Apoc. xvi, 6 ; Jerem. xix, 8.) 

Q. What would you draw from this con- 
sideration ? 

A. That Christ evidently wished to be un- 
derstood in the literal sense, and, on account of 
this, was compelled to use language .disagree- 
able to Jewish ears ; otherwise, his use of such 
expressions was uncalled for, improper, and 
unwise, and calculated to defeat the very ob- 
ject which our Divine Saviour had in view; 
and this supposition, that the very author of 
wisdom would couch the doctrines he wished 
the entire world to believe, in language unpar- 
donably incorrect, and scandalous to his fol- 
lowers, is not only absurd — it is impious and 
blasphemous. 

CHAPTER VII. 

Q. Christ then promised, that he would give 
his body and blood for the spiritual food of his 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 205 

people, — where do you find that promise ful- 
filled ? 

A. In Luke, chap, xxii, 19: "And taking 
bread, he gave thanks, and brake, and gave to 
them, saying : " This is my body which is 
given for you." Place these words beside the 
words of the promise, and you will at once 
admit the promise fulfilled. The words of the 
promise were — " And the bread that I will give 
is my flesh, for the life of the world." 

Q. Is the institution as to the cup or chalice 
equally clear ? 

A. Yes ; the words of the promise were — 
" Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man 
and drink his blood, you shall not have life in 
you." This promise is now fulfilled in these 
words, Luke, chap, xxii, 20 : " This is the 
chalice of the New Testament in my blood, 
which shall be shed for you." 

Q. Are the Evangelists. Matthew (xxvi chap., 
26, 28) and Mark (xiv chap., 22, 24) equally 
clear ? 

A. Yes ; and the fact, that they repeat the 
words of the institution almost in the very 
same words, and essentially in the very same 
sense, — that they all repeat the words body and 
blood with the most remarkable uniformity of 
language, is one of the strongest proofs for the 
real presence. 

18 



206 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Why so ? 

A. Because they, at least, knew what Christ 
meant by the words body and blood; and if 
Christ meant by these merely bread and wine, 
some of them, were it only by accident, would 
have given his meaning instead of his words, 
or, at all events, would have given some 
explanation of them ; yet not one of them 
did so. 

Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the 
Syriac version of St. Mark ? 

A. Yes ; learned Catholics, as well as Prot- 
estants, admit, that it represents our Lord as 
saying : " Take, eat, this is my body itself ;" 
thus clearly confirming the Catholic interpre- 
tation. See Walton, Prol. Bib. Polygl. 

Q. If Christ intended to deliver to mankind 
his real body and blood, could he have used 
more proper, concise, or correct language ? 

A. No ; we cannot conceive language better 
chosen. 

Q. If he intended mere bread and wine, could 
he have used more improper language ? 

A. No ; in that case, the use of such lan- 
guage would be unwise and inexplicable. 

Q. Was the time in which Christ instituted 
the sacrament a period of his mortal career, in 
which the use of the most obscure and improper 
figures should be employed to convey to his 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 207 

Apostles (those who were to teach the world) 
the most simple and necessary truths ? 

A. Certainly not ; he was making his last 
Testament, which, even amongst men, is made 
in as simple and clear language as possible ; 
he was teaching his Apostles what they were 
to teach others ; he was teaching what w T as to 
be believed and practised by the whole world 
till the latest ages, and upon the belief and 
practice of which all were to be saved or 
damned. The awfulness of the time, therefore, 
the awful nature of the doctrine, and its awful 
importance to those who were to teach, as 
well as to those who should be taught, all de- 
manded from a good and wise God, what he 
could easily give, and what he most assuredly 
did give — the utmost perspicuity in the lan- 
guage used. 

Q.Is there any thing remarkable in the 
words of the old alliance, which tends to illus- 
trate these words of the new — " This is my 
blood ?" 

A. Yes ; in Exodus, chap, xxiv, Moses took 
blood and sprinkled it upon the people, saying : 
" This is the blood of the covenant which the 
Lord hath made with you." The words of 
Christ in the New Testament have evidently a 
relation to those of Moses in the Old ; and as 
Moses presented to the people, in the Old Law, 



208 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the real blood of the victims, so, in the New, 
the real blood of the heavenly victim — the 
Lamb of God — is presented to the children 
of the new covenant. 

Q. If, in this most dignified of all the sacra- 
ments, the true body and blood of Christ were 
not present, what would be the consequence ? 

A. That Jesus Christ, the all-wise God and 
Saviour of mankind, did intentionally, or at 
least indifferent as to the awful consequences, 
express himself so in its institution, as to de- 
ceive nineteen-twentieths of those he came to 
redeem, — to involve all Christians in bitter and 
endless disputes, and expose the great body of 
his Church to be guilty of the appalling crime 
of idolatry ; — all this, too, whilst one word of 
explanation from him would have prevented all 
these evils. 

Q. What would you, infer from this ? 

A. That, as these blasphemous suppositions 
cannot for a moment be entertained, so it is 
clear, beyond all doubt, that Christ spoke in the 
literal sense, — in that he intended to be under- 
stood, and in that sense, and no other, his lan- 
guage is perfectly intelligible. 

Q. Was the Almighty pleased to be explicit 
in the language which he employed in the 
establishment of other institutions of import- 
ance ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 209 

A. To be satisfied that he was so in institu- 
tions of much less importance, read Gen. chap, 
xvii, 10, on circumcision ; Exod. chap, xii, 3, 
on the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb ; and 
Leviticus, on general ritual observance : and 
in the New Law, the sacrament of baptism is 
instituted and enforced, in language the most 
clear and precise. 

Q. If Christ meant to leave us in the sacra- 
ment mere bread and wine, are not his words 
sufficiently explicit ? 

A. No ; they are the reverse. He says : 
"This is my body, this is my blood;" whilst 
Protestants would make him mean by these 
words, — This is not my body, this is not my 
blood. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Q. Can you quote any other Scriptural au- 
thority on the subject ? 

A. Yes ; several, and of great importance. 
St. Paul, 1 Cor. x, 16, says : " The chalice of 
benediction which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion of the blood of Christ ? and the bread 
which we break, is it not the partaking of the 
body of the Lord?" 

Q. What is the first remark you would make 
on this passage ? 

A. St. Paul knew well whether the sacra- 
18* 



210 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

ment was the body and blood of Christ, or only 
mere bread and wine. He is here preaching 
to the Christian Corinthians, instructing them 
in what they ought to believe and practise. 
If, then, Christ spoke figuratively, why does not 
St. Paul now explain these figures to the sim- 
ple and the unlettered ? Why does he now, 
when he ought to be plain and clear, call bread, 
the body, and wine, the blood of Christ ? If the 
Protestant be the true sense of these words, 
why does he not, even by accident, hint at such 
a meaning ? 

Q. Have you any other reflection to offer on 
St. Paul's words ? 

A. If the cup contain only wine, how can 
St. Paul call it a cup of benediction or bless- 
ing ? If only wine, how can the reception of 
it be the communion of the blood of Christ ? 
If what appears bread, be only bread, how can 
the partaking of it be the partaking of thfc body 
of the Lord? Besides, the word which St. 
Paul uses to express communion, is koinonia, 
not metoche, a word which expresses, not any 
ordinary union, but the closest union of what 
we receive with our own substance. 

Q. What does St. Paul say in the next 
verse? (1 Cor. x, 17.) 

A. After having said, that we are partakers 
of the body and blood of Christ, under the 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 211 

forms of bread and wine, he now adds : " For 
we, being many, are one bre*ad, one body, all 
that partake of one bread." Now, in the 
Catholic sense of the sacrament, these words 
are true strictly, for we all partake of one and 
the same bread, — that is, the sacred flesh of 
the Lord. The bread which I will give, is my 
jlesh; but, in the Protestant sense, St. Paul's 
words would be nonsense ; for if the sacrament 
be mere bread, then each receiver partakes of 
a different bread ; and hence, as the bread up- 
on which they feed is not one, so neither can 
they be cemented into one body. Protestants, 
therefore, being neither one bread, nor one body, 
are not the sort of Christians to whom St. 
Paul addressed himself. 

Q. What does St. Paul say in the next verse 
(18) of same chapter? 

A. " Are not they that eat of the sacrifice, 
partakers of the altar ?" 

Q. What does St. Paul mean by these words ? 

A. That as the Jews, by the order of the 
Almighty, always, except when precluded by 
their sins, eat of the victims that were offered, 
so also the Christians, by partaking of the altar, 
eat of the sacrifice ; but the Christian sacrifice 
is Christ himself; therefore, in partaking of the 
victim, they eat the body and drink the blood 
of Christ. 



212 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Have you any other Scriptural argu- 
ment ? 

A. On this all-important matter, the argu- 
ments from Scripture seem inexhaustible. St. 
Paul, 1 Cor. chap, xi, 23, 24, and 25, records 
the institution in the very language adopted by- 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and adds, that he 
has learned what he writes from the Lord. 
Now, if Christ had spoken in figures at the in- 
stitution, would it not be natural to expect, 
that, in this new revelation to St. Paul, who 
was not present at the Last Supper, he should 
vary the language so as to afford some explana- 
tion of these figures ? And yet he does not ; 
the same words are adhered to with the most 
wonderful exactness. Again, St. Paul knew 
the true meaning of these words ; and if he 
understood them to mean mere bread and wine, 
used as a figure or commemoration, why did 
he not, writing, as he was, in Greek, to the 
Corinthians, say — this is a figure of my body, 
or a commemoration of my blood ; or this 
signifies my body and my blood. St. Paul was 
instructing the ignorant — he tells these ignorant 
people, that what they believed to be bread and 
wine, is the body and blood of Christ ; was this 
the way an inspired Apostle should instruct the 
simple ? — would any Protestant minister imitate 
St. Paul in this odd system of instruction ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 213 

Q. Does St. Paul give any explanation, 
which proves incontestable/, that he understood 
the sacrament to be the true body and blood of 
Christ ? 

A. Yes ; in. verse 27th of same chapter, he 
says : " Therefore, whosoever shall eat this 
bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord un- 
worthily, shall be guilty of the body and the 
blood of the Lord." 

Q. What inferences do you draw from these 
words ? 

A. That St. Paul believed in the real pres- 
ence ; for how could he call the chalice, the 
chalice of the Lord, if it were only a cup con- 
taining common wine ? And what would the 
unworthiness consist in, if only common bread 
and wine were present, — and how could the 
umvorthy receiver be guilty of the body and 
blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the 
Lord were not there present ? 

Q. What do you remark on the following 
verse (28) — " But let a man prove himself, and 
so let him eat of that bread and drink of the 
chalice ?" 

A. That, in the sacrament, there must be 
something more than mere bread, otherwise, why 
this searching proof and trial before receiving it ? 

Q. What are the concluding words of St. 
Paul, verse 29 ? 



214 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. " For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to him- 
self ; not discerning the body of the Lord." 

Q,. What do you say on these words ? 

A. How could a man become unworthy by 
eating a morsel of bread and drinking a little 
wine, as a commemoration of the death of 
Christ ? Why, above all, is he consigned to 
eternal damnation for a thing, in itself, so 
indifferent, — and why is he doomed to this 
awful fate, for not discerning the body of the 
Lord, if the body of the Lord be not there, 
since, if not there, it cannot be insulted or pro- 
faned ? If the Catholic be the true doctrine, — 
if the body and blood of Christ are truly and 
really present, — then are all St. Paul's words 
intelligible and full of meaning ; but, in the 
Protestant sense, they are the most unintelli- 
gible gibberish that ever was uttered. 

Q. Can you draw any further proof of this 
from the next verse (30) — " Therefore, are 
there many infirm and weak among you, and 
many sleep ?" 

A. Yes, and a very strong proof. St. Paul, 
in these words, says : on account of your un- 
worthy communions, because you, in many 
instances, receive, without discerning the body 
of the Lord, you are afflicted with sickness, and 
even with death, in punishment of your awful 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 215 

guilt by the profanation of ths sacred body and 
blood of the Redeemer, — a punishment which 
we cannot suppose inflicted for eating bread 
or drinking mere wine. 

Q. Are the Christian Church and dispen- 
sation superior to those of the Old Law ? 

A. Certainly ; this is admitted on all hands, 
by Protestants as well as Catholics. 

Q. Would this be the case, if the most dig- 
nified sacrament of the New Law were only 
bread and wine, used as a mere figure of the 
Christian sacrifice ? 

A. Assuredly not ; for how much more dig- 
nified, and strikingly illustrative of the suffer- 
ings and death of our beloved Saviour, was the 
Paschal Lamb of the Jews, slain and offered 
up before the Lord, than is the unmeaning prac- 
tice of eating and drinking bread and wine, as 
the only memorial of the Christian Pasch. 

Q. Was the manna of the desert a figure of 
the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist ? 

A. Yes ; Christ himself declares it ; but if 
the Protestant bread and wine be the Christian 
Pasch, then the figure is greater than the reality, 
and Christianity is degraded even below the 
level of the Judaic rite. The manna was 
miraculous bread, the Protestant sacrament is 
natural bread ; the manna came from on high, 
the Protestant sacrament came from the earth, 



216 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

or the baker's oven ; the manna was a heavenly 
food, given only to the people of God, the Prot- 
estant sacrament is the common food of all 
men, wicked and virtuous, Jews and Gentiles, 
Turks and Christians ; the manna, on the Sab- 
bath, suffered not corruption, the Protestant 
sacrament is corruptible at all times, it has no 
miraculous qualities ; the manna had the taste 
of all kinds of food, and yet was not of all these 
foods, the Protestant sacrament has the taste 
of ordinary bread, and has no heavenly proper- 
ty whatever. Thus, according to the Protest- 
ant faith, Christianity sinks into insignificance 
before the wonders of Judaism, — the figure is 
greater than the reality, — Moses superior to 
Christ, — all our notions of religion are subvert- 
ed, — we find ourselves entangled in a dreadful 
mass of absurdities and contradiction. But 
when we look at the Catholic Pasch, and be- 
lieve in the illustrious sacrifice and sacrament 
in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ 
are offered and received, we are extricated 
from our inexplicable difficulties ; our under- 
standing becomes unclouded ; we perceive at 
once the noble and significant figure of the Old, 
and the infinitely superior and illustrious real- 
ity of the New Law. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 217 

CHAPTER IX. 

Q. Does not Dr. Adam Clarke, in " Dis- 
course on the Holy Eucharist" London, 1808, 
say, that in the Syriac, the language used by 
Christ, there is no word that expresses " to sig- 
nify or represent," and that hence Christ was 
compelled to say " This IS my body/' instead 
of " this represents my body ?" 

A. Yes ; but this assertion of Dr. Clarke has 
been expunged since by Mr. Home, thus prov- 
ing that Clarke was wrong. Dr. Lee of Cam- 
bridge (Proleg. to Bagster's Polygl. Bible) con- 
fesses that Clarke was in error ; and the Right 
Rev. Dr. Wiseman, who is well qualified to 
judge in this matter, has discovered, in the 
Syriac, forty words expressing to signify, 
to represent, or typify. But the simplest an- 
swer to the objection is, that the Apostles, who 
wrote in Greek, had plenty of words meaning 
to signify. Why then did they use the word, 
is, when, to express Protestant doctrine, if they 
wish to teach such, they had an abundant choice 
of words ? 

Q. Does not St. Luke, chap, xxii, say : " And 
having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and 
said, take and divide it among you ; for I say 
to you, that I will not drink of the vine till the 
kingdom of God come ?" And does not this 

19 



218 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

prove that it was wine, and not his blood, which 
was in the chalice ? 

A. If Protestants would have patience to 
read the whole passage, and not leap at conclu- 
sions, they would see that the above words 
were uttered not over the sacramental cup, 
but over the wine that was drunk with the 
Paschal Lamb, immediately before Christ insti- 
tuted the sacrament in verses W, 20. 

Q. Christ says — " this is the chalice, the 
new testament," &c. ; and where we have these 
two figures, why may not the whole be figu- 
rative ? 

A. These figures were the simplest language 
to the Apostles who were familiar with them. 
Every one says, this cup, this glass, meaning 
the contents of it ; and the Apostles were ac- 
customed to the language of Moses — " This is 
the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath 
made with you," meaning that the blood was 
not of the covenant, bui its seal. Besides, Christ 
explains the figure in the words u which shall 
be shed for you ;" now, assuredly, it was not 
the chalice or wine that was shed, but his blood. 

Q. St. Paul, 1 Cor, chap, xi, says : " Do 
this for the commemoration or in remembrance 
of me." Now we do not remember things 
present but things absent ; hence Christ is not 
present in the sacrament. 



A DOCTUINAL CATECHISM. 219 

A. This is a mere quibble. Eccles. chapi 
xii, says : " Remember thy Creator in the day* 
of thy youth." Now, will any Protestant be 
fool enough to say, that, in the days of our 
youth, our Creator is absent from us ? Besides, 
Christ is not visibly present a& he was when 
addressing the Apostles ; hence, inasmuch as 
he is now invisible, he may be said to be ab- 
sent. In fine, the sacrament is a memorial of 
his death ; and the real death of Jesus is- not a 
thing present in the Holy Eucharist, but is only 
represented in it, — 1 Cor. chap, xi, — " As often 
as you eat this bread, &c, you shall show the 
death of the Lord till he come." 

Q. Can a thing be a memorial of itself ? 

A. Yes ; the manna preserved in the Ark 
was so ; Aaron's rod was preserved as a me- 
morial of itself, with which Moses wrought so 
many miracles ; the victims eaten by the Is- 
raelites were memorials of the same victims 
offered on the altar. 

Q. May not these words, " This is my body," 
&c, be understood as these others, " I am the 
door," " I am the vine ?" 

A. No, for many reasons. 1st, Nothing was 
previously said by Christ to prepare the Apos- 
tles for believing that he was really to become 
a vine or a door, whilst he wrought a tremen- 
dous miracle, and addressed them in a long 



220 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

discourse, to prepare them to believe that the 
bread he was to give them should be his own 
flesh. 2dly, When Christ says, " I am the 
door," — John, chap, x — the Scripture itself, 
verse 6th, declares, that he was speaking fig- 
uratively. " This proverb Jesus spoke to them, 
but they understood not" Christ, seeing this, 
immediately explains the figure : "I am the 
door into the sheepfold ; by my doctrine and 
through my blood all must enter. If any man 
enter in, he shall be saved. / am the good 
shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for 
his sheep." In John, chap, xv, where he says 
he is the vine, he explains himself instantly, by 
calling us the branches ; showing, that we must 
live by his grace, as the vine- branch lives by 
the sap of the vine, — that we must be united 
to him by love and obedience, as he was by 
these united to his Father. Now, when Christ 
says — " This is my body," he does not even 
hint that he is speaking figuratively ; he enters 
into no explanation whatever. The Jews are 
scandalized, — his disciples leave him, — all ex- 
claim : This is a hard saying ; yet he repeats 
the same truth in the same words : " Except 
you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink 
his blood, you shall not have life in you." 

Q. May not Jesus Christ, when he said, 
" This is my body," have spoken figuratively 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 221 

like St. Paul, when he said, 1 Cor. chap, x, 
" and the rock was Christ IT 

A. No ; for St. Paul is merely preaching, 
where figures are allowed and useful; whilst 
Christ is instituting a sacrament, at the most 
awful moment of his life, in the act of making 
his last will and testament ; and every one will 
grant, that here rhetorical figures and flowers 
would be highly unbecoming. Besides, there 
is no figure in the words of St. Paul, if care- 
fully examined. He proposes the cloud and 
the passage of the Red Sea as a figure of bap- 
tism, — the manna as a figure of the body, and 
the water of the Rock of Horeb as a figure of 
the blood of Christ. He then says : " And all 
drank the same spiritual drink ; they drank of 
the spiritual rock that followed them, and the 
rock (spiritual) was Christ." And was not 
Christ the true spiritual rock, from whose 
w r ounds, as from spiritual fountains, all be- 
lievers, both prospectively and retrospectively, 
drank (not as the Jews, from the material and 
figurative rock Horeb) the spiritual waters of 
eternal life ? The word spiritual explains the 
whole, and does away with the figure. 

Q. May not the substantive verb " is" in the 
text, " This is my body," mean represents, as 
the same verb " is" means represents in Exodus, 
chap, xii — " You shall eat {the flesh of the 

19* 



222 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Lamb) in haste, for it is the Phase (or Pass- 
over) of the Lord ?" 

A. No, not at all ; though on the force of 
this text Zwinglius became so bold as to deny 
transubstantiation, declaring, that he was in a 
dream reminded of this text by some " white or 
black monitor." The fact is, that the verb is 
does not mean represent in this passage. Even 
Rosenmiiller, one of the most learned Protest- 
ant commentators, maintains, that the word is 
should be here taken literally ; the original has, 
This is the passover to the Lord, or this is the 
day or feast-day of the passover sacred to the 
Lord. The very same construction of lan- 
guage is used in Exodus, x : " This is the Sab- 
bath to the Lord," which we have " this is the 
Sabbath of the Lord." The same again oc- 
curs in Exodus, xxxii, 5 : " The festival of the 
Lord," for " the festival to the Lord." And, 
finally, in the 27th verse of the very chapter 
under discussion : " This is the sacrifice of the 
Lord's passover," — that is, in the original : " This 
is the sacrifice of the passover sacred to the 
Lord." So that the verb is does not here 
mean represent at all, but is to be understood 
literally. How amusingly inconsecutive are 
Protestants in their arguments against Catholi- 
cism ! In a few Scriptural instances the verb 
to be means to represent, whilst in ten thou- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 223 

sand instances it is to be understood literally, 
therefore, like true philosophers, they conclude, 
because it suits their views, that in these words 
— " this is my body," — the w r ord is must be un- 
derstood, not literally, but figuratively, whilst 
every circumstance connected with the above 
text goes to prove the contrary. 

Q. Do not the Scriptures represent the body 
of Christ as in heaven, which he is not to quit 
till the " times of the restitution of all things/' 
— that is, until the end of the world ? 

A. Yes ; but the Scriptures assure us, that 
his body is also in the Eucharist ; therefore we 
believe both. Those who make this objection 
will find, that our Lord, after his ascension, 
appeared visibly to St. Paul in the castle of 
Jerusalem. 

Q. Does not Christ himself say, Mark, chap, 
xiv : " The poor you have always with you, 
but me ye have not always ?" 

A. Yes ; but he speaks here of his mortal 
and visible presence ; for he elsewhere says : 
" I will be with you all days, even to the end." 

Q. St. Paul calls the sacrament bread, 1 Cor. 
xi, therefore it is bread. 

A. He calls it bread, because it has the ap- 
pearance of bread ; but he calls it this bread, 
clearly showing that it has something extraor- 
dinary about it. He calls it bread, but he says 



224 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that he who partakes of it, partakes of the 
body of Christ. Christ called it bread ; but he 
adds, the bread which I will give you is my 
flesh for the life of the world. Again, we have 
many examples of Scripture, in which the thing 
changed bears the name of that from which it 
is transubstantiated. Thus, Gen. ii, Eve is call- 
ed the bone of Adam ; in Gen. iii, Adam is 
called dust, because he is made from dust; 
Exodus vii, Aaron's rod is called a rod, after it 
became a serpent ; John ii, the water after 
being changed into wine, is called water. The 
Scripture, too, often calls things what they 
appear to be. Thus, Gen. xvii, angels in hu- 
man form, are called men. 



CHAFTER X.— ON TRANSUBSTANTIATIOK 

Q. What do you mean by Transubstantia- 
tion ? 

A. To comprehend this, we must observe, 
that in all bodies there are two things to be 
noted : 1st, the outward appearances, such as 
taste, smell, shape, color, &c. ; and, 2dly, the 
matter or substance in which these qualities 
reside. The sensible qualities are objects of 
knowledge, which we can acquire by the testi- 
mony of the senses, but w r e can form no notion 
of the nature or structure of the inward sub- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 225 

stance ; it is beyond the reach of even our con- 
ception. Now, with regard to the Holy Eu- 
charist, our faith teaches us, that " this inward 
imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, 
is, at the consecration, by the Almighty power 
of God, changed into the substance of the body 
and blood of Christ/' all the outward sensible 
qualities remaining entirely the same as before 
consecration. (Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, 
cap. 4.) 

Q. Can you show that such a change took 
place ? 

A. Yes ; for when Christ took the bread in- 
to his hands, it was still bread ; but when he 
gave it to his disciples, he declares that it is his 
body : " This is my body/' His words can- 
not be false ; by declaring it to be his body, he 
made it so. The change did not take place in 
the outward sensible qualities ; therefore it 
took place in the inward substance. 

Q. May it not be said that his body is with 
the bread ? 

A. No ; for Christ does not say : In this 
bread, or with this bread, or under this bread, 
or this bread eaten by faith, or with this bread 
when you receive it, is my body ; but he simply 
says — This is my body. What Christ held in 
his hand could not be bread and his body at one 
and the same time. 



226 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Does the Scripture, by any other exam- 
pie than this, show, that the word of Christ, 
affirming that a thing is what it was not be- 
fore, is sufficient to produce the effect ? 

A. Yes ; the ruler — John, chap, iv, 49, 50 
— says to Christ ; " Sir, come down before my 
son die. Jesus saith to him : Go thy way, thy 
son liveth; and it was the same hour that 
Jesus said to the ruler, thy son liveth, that the 
fever left him" (Verse 53.) 

Q. How is such a change possible ? 

A. You mav as well ask how was the world 
created out of nothing ; — how were the waters 
of Egypt turned into blood ; — the dry rod in- 
to a living serpent ; — the water into wine at 
Can a. 

Q. How can one substance exist under the 
outward appearances of another ? 

A. As easily as angels who appeared to God's 
servants in the Old Law, under the outward 
appearance of men, and spoke and walked and 
ate, as if they really were men. Luke, chap, 
iii, 22 — the Holy Ghost appeared under the 
bodily shape of a dove ; and Acts, chap, ii, 3, 
under the form of " parted tongues of fire" 

Q. How can the body of Christ be in many 
places at one and the same time ? 

A. We know little of glorified bodies, or 
their qualities and perfection ; but we know 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 227 

that they are not like mortal bodies. How did 
our Saviour's body pass through the stone with 
which his sepulchre was closed ? — Mark xv, 
46. How did his body pass through the door ? 
— John xx, 19, 26. How did he, whilst in 
heaven, after his ascension, appear to St. Paul ? 
— 1 Cor. chap. xv. In fine, if, by the power of 
God, the same body cannot be in many places 
at once, how did Christ — Mark vi, 40 — feed 
five thousand men with five loaves and two 
fishes, and four thousand, with seven loaves and 
a few small fishes ? — Mark viii, 6. 

Q. Perhaps each one only took a little 1 

A. No ; for the Scripture says, they did all 
eat and had their fill, and there were twelve 
baskets of fragments remaining. 

Q. Perhaps, then, Christ created new loaves 
and fishes ? 

A. No ; for again the Scripture declares, 
that " the two fishes he divided am.ong them 
all," and that " they filled twelve baskets of 
the fragments of the five barley loaves." 

Q. How can the body of Christ be contained 
under the compass of a small host ? 

A. Our Saviour says, that our bodies shall 
become like the angels, — that it is possible for 
God to make a camel pass through the eye of 
a needle ; and how did the body of Christ pass 
through the door and through the stone ? 



228 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Are not the senses deceived in this 
matter ? 

A. Not at all ; the senses can only be em- 
ployed on external qualities ; they are not 
exercised on substance. In the sacrament, the 
external appearances are those of bread and 
wine ; the senses perceive these, and therefore 
they perceive all that is within their province. 
As well might you say, the senses were deceived 
in Christ, who was God-man, and yet appeared 
to be only man, or in the Holy Ghost, when he 
appeared under the form of a dove. 

Q. How can the same thing appear under 
two different forms, as under the form of bread 
and wine ? 

A. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form 
of a dove — Luke iii, 22 ; and under the form of 
painted tongues — Acts ii, 3. 

Q. Has the doctrine of transubstantiation 
been believed in every age of the Church ? 

A. No portion of Christian doctrine is better 
attested. St. Ambrose, lib. iv de Sacra, chap. 
4, says : " Before the consecration, bread only 
is present ; but after the sacred words are pro- 
nounced, the bread is changed into the body 
of our Lord." And St. Gregory of Nyssa, in 
his Large Catechism, chap. 37, declares : " I 
firmly believe that the bread is changed into 
the body of Jesus Christ." 



A DOCTRTNAL CATECHISM. 229 



CHAPTER XL 

Q. Is Christ permanently present in the 
sacrament, — that is, at any other time than when 
it is received ? 

A. He is really and permanently present 
from and after the time the words of conse- 
cration are pronounced. 

Q. How do you prove this ? 

A. At the moment Christ finished the pro- 
nunciation of these words — " This is my body," 
either his body was there, or his words were 
not true ; the latter is blasphemy ; therefore, his 
body was present, but the disciples had not yet 
received it, — there it was, present at other than 
the moment in which it was received. 

Q. Throw a little more light on this. 

A. Christ did not say : This shall be my body 
when you receive it, but absolutely, this is my 
body. The present, and not the future time, is 
marked by the word is. 

Q. If the Lutheran doctrine in this matter 
were true, what would be the consequence ? 

A. That the body of Christ would be present, 
not by virtue of the words of consecration, 
but by virtue of the manducation, which is a 
gross absurdity. 

Q. What says St. Ambrose — Lib. iv de 
Sacr. chap. 4 ? 

20 



230 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. " The words of consecration are as effi- 
cacious as those employed by God in the crea- 
tion of the world." Hence, the body of Christ 
is present immediately after the words of conse- 
cration, as the world existed immediately after 
the pronunciation of the words which drew it 
out of nothing. 

Q. Repeat St. Cyril in his Epistle to Coelo- 
syrius ? 

A. " None but a fool," he says, " can imagine 
that the consecrated host loses its virtue imme- 
diately after consecration." 

Q. Have you any other proof of the perma- 
nent presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist ? 

A. Yes ; the Primitive Church preserved the 
Eucharist for the sick in holy vessels. In times 
of persecution, it was kept for a considerable 
time ; and the bishops were wont to send it, one 
to another, as a mark of their strict union. 

Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain un- 
der the species ? 

A. As long as the species exist. 

Q. If the blessed sacrament should, fall into 
fire or water, would Jesus Christ suffer or be 
insulted ? 

A. He would be insulted if this happened by 
the fault of man ; but if by accident, no insult 
would be offered to him ; He is immortal and 
impassible — He can suffer no more ; and in the 






A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 231 

cases mentioned, or any other such, the species 
only are consumed or changed. 

CHAPTER XII. 

Q. Should we adore Jesus Christ in the 
blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ? 

A. Certainly ; because He, whom all the 
angels adore, is truly present on our altars. 

Q. Are Catholics justified in kneeling before 
the blessed sacrament when it is carried past 
them in the street, either to the sick, or in re- 
ligious processions ? 

A. Yes ; more than justified ; for if, accord- 
ing to Scripture, we bend the knee at the name 
of Jesus, how much more are we bound to do 
so before his sacred person. 

Q. Do Catholics act properly in carrying 
the adorable sacrament with religious pomp 
and solemnity in processions ? 

A. If the Israelites carried the ark of the 
alliance with great solemnity, Catholics have 
much more reason to carry in triumph the holy 
sacrament, of which the ark was only a mere 
figure. 

Q. May it not be said, that Jesus Christ is 
in the sacrament, not seeking our adorations, 
but to be the spiritual food of our souls ? 

A. Jesus Christ was in the crib of Bethlehem, 



232 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

not to be adored merely, yet the Magi neglect- 
ed not to adore him. He cured the man born 
blind, not merely to receive that man's adora- 
tion, yet that man neglected not to give it him. 
Wherever Jesus Christ is, there he is to be re- 
ceived and adored with sovereign honors. St. 
Augus. super Psal. 98, says : " It is sinful to 
neglect to adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist." 
St. Ambrose, Lib. iii de Sanct. Spirit, chap. 12, 
says : " We adore Jesus Christ during the cele- 
bration of the sacred mysteries." 

Q. Are the Lutherans agreed upon this 
point ? 

A. No ; Kemnitius and his partisans order 
the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist ; Illyri- 
cus and his party forbid it. 



ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND 
CONFESSION. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. For what end was the sacrament of Pen- 
ance instituted ? 

A. For the remission of sins committed after 
baptism. 

Q. Is it a true sacrament ? 

A. Yes ; because it has all the essentials of 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 233 

a sacrament, — the outward sign in the sentence 
of absolution pronounced by the priest, — the 
inward grace in the sanctifying grace of God, 
by which our sins are forgiven, — and it is evi- 
dently instituted by Jesus Christ. 

Q. Where? 

A. In Matth. chap, ix, Jesus heals the man 
sick of the palsy, and says to him : " Be of good 
heart, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Jews 
say : " He blasphemeth." Jesus replies, that 
he works this miracle, that they might know 
" that the Son of man hath power on earth to 
forgive sins." " And the multitude seeing it, 
feared, and glorified God who had given such 
power to men." Here Christ works a tre- 
mendous miracle to prove that he, as man, can 
forgive sins, and the people glorify God who 
had given such power to men. 

Q. What do you conclude from this ? 

A. That Jesus Christ, even as man, had this 
power from his Father. 

Q. Does he communicate this power, which 
he certainly had, to the pastors of the Church ? 

A. On the very day of his resurrection, he 
says to them — John xx, 21: " As my Father 
hath sent me, I also send you ;" but he himself, 
even as man, had, by the above text, power 
from his Father to forgive sins ; therefore he 
gave this power to his Apostles. 

20* 



234 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What does he immediately add, to clear 
away all doubt as to this power ? 

A. " Breathing upon them, he said : Receive 
ye the Holy Ghost ; whose sins ye shall forgive, 
they are forgiven them, and whose- sins ye shall 
retain, they are retained." Again — Matth. 
xviii, 18 — Christ says : "Amen, I say to you, 
whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be 
bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall 
loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in 
heaven." 

Q. What says St. Chrysostom on these pas- 
sages ? 

A. " To the priests is given a power, which 
God would not give to angels or archangels ; 
earthly princes have the power of binding the 
body, but the binding of the priest reaches even 
to the soul : . . . .what the priests do below, God 
ratifies above, and the master confirms the 
sentence of the servants." 

Q. Can the priest forgive or retain sin as 
he pleases ? 

A. No ; he is bound to act as St. Paul did, 
when he pardoned the incestuous Corinthian. 
The Apostle declares, that what he did, " he did 
it in the person of Christ" — 2 Cor. ii. The 
priest acts in the person of Christ, and does 
only what Christ would do for the sincere 
penitent. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 235 

Q. 75 it not blasphemy to say that man can 

forgive sins ? 

A. Certainly it is blasphemy to say, that 
men, not commissioned by God for that pur- 
pose, can do so ; but it is no blasphemy to say, 
that men may have that power, and have that 
power from God, since the Apostles were men, 
and yet they certainly had such power. 

Q. On what conditions can the lawfully- 
ordained and commissioned priest exercise 
this power ? 

A. The penitent, to be absolved, must detest 
his sins ; — he must be firmly resolved to avoid 
sin and its occasions in future ; — he must be 
willing to submit to whatever penance the priest 
imposes ; — and, if able, he must confess all his 
sins. 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. Is the confession of sin a modern prac- 
tice ? 

A. No; it is as ancient as revealed religion. 

Q. How do you prove this ? 

A. In the first place, from the clearest testi- 
mony of the Old Law — " When a man or 
woman shall have committed any of all the 
sins that men are wont to commit, and, by 
negligence, shall have transgressed the com- 
mandment of the Lord, they shall confess their 



236 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

sin, and restore the principal, and a fifth part 
over and above." — Num. v, 6. Here we have 
not only confession, but penance and restitu- 
tion. 

Q. Quote other passages on this important 
matter, 

A. " He that hideth his sins shall not pros- 
per ; but he that shall confess and shall forsake 
them shall obtain mercy. 5 ' — Prov. xxviii, 13. 
" Be not ashamed to say the truth for the sake 
of thy soul ; for there is a shame that bringeth 
sin, and a shame that bringeth glory and grace." 
See also Ecclus. vi, 24, 31. 

Q. Did the practice of confession exist im- 
mediately before the coming of Christ ? 

A. Certainly ; for it is said of the immediate 
forerunner of Christ, St. John the Baptist, 
" That there went out to him all the country 
of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were 
baptized by hirn in the river Jordan, confessing 
their sins" — Mark i, 5. 

Q. But did not this confession merely mean 
confessing sin to God ? 

A. Protestants must be blind indeed, not to 
see the absurdity of this subterfuge ; do they 
consider that a culprit, about to be hanged, 
makes a real confession, if he merely confess 
his sin in his own mind or heart to God ? No ; 
every execution that takes place proves that 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 237 

he does not. Confession is the revelation of 
sin to man. The confession of sin to God is 
in itself, without contrition, a matter of little 
consequence ; for God knows all things ; we 
confess to him in spite of ourselves. Besides, 
in Num. v, you see that the confession must 
have been to men, as the restitution of the 
principal, and the fifth part over and above, 
must have been made to men. 



CHAPTER III. 

Q. In the New Law, is confession instituted 
by God or by the Church ? 

A. Confession is a Divine institution, but the 
Church has fixed the time for the performance 
of that duty. 

Q. How do you prove that confession is a 
Divine institution ? 

A. From John, chap, xx, 22, where Christ 
says to his Apostles : " Whose sins ye shall for- 
give, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins 
ye shall retain, they are retained ;" and from 
Matth. chap, xviii. 

Q. What do you conclude from these pas- 
sages ? 

A. That before the pastors of the Church 
can exercise this power, the sinner must con- 
fess his sins to them. 



238 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM:. 

Q. Why so? 

A. By the above text, the priest has power 
to forgive or to retain sin, according to the dis- 
position of the penitent ; now, without confes- 
sion, the exercise of this power is impossible, 
because, in that case, the priest cannot know 
what sins to retain, or what to forgive. 

Q. Throw a little more light on this. 

A. The priest is a judge who must decide 
what sins he ought to forgive, what he ought 
to retain : now, no judge can pronounce a de- 
cision without hearing the whole case. 

Q. May it not be said, that the priest is not 
a judge, but is appointed merely to declare 
the sins forgiven ? 

A. No ; for the keys are given, to open and 
shut the gate, not to declare that it is open. 
Hence, the power which Christ gave to his 
Apostles and their successors, was the power 
of binding and loosing, not the power of de- 
claring the penitent bound or loosed. 

Q. What do you find in 1 John, i, 8 ? 

A. " If we say we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we 
confess our sins, God is faithful and just to for- 
give us our sins." 

Q. May not Protestants say, that this say- 
ing, we have no sin, and this confession of our 
sins, merely regard God and not the priests ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 239 

A. They must regard the priests ; for who 
would dare to say to God that he has no sin ? 
And does not God know all our sins already 
without having recourse to our confession ? 

Q. Have you any other remark to make on 
this passage ? 

A. It says, if we confess our sins, God is 
faithful and just to forgive us. God is here 
said to be faithful and just, because he promised 
to forgive us our sins on the condition that we 
confess them. The words of the Apostle are 
the same as the following : " If we confess our 
sins, God, who is faithful and just, will keep the 
promise he made in these words : Whose sins 
you shall forgive, they are forgiven." 

Q. Can you produce any other texts of 
Scripture on this subject ? 

A. St. James, chap, v, 16, says: " Confess 
therefore your sins one to another, and pray for 
one another, that you may be saved/ 9 Here 
we have confession to man laid down as a con- 
dition to salvation. 

Q. May not this mean public and general 
confession, not to the priest, but to any neigh- 
bor ? 

A. It means confession of sin either public 
or private, for either will be sufficient, and it 
means to the pastors of the Church who are 
declared to have power to absolve ; for what 



240 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

would be the use of confessing private sins to 
the public who cannot forgive them, and who 
would be scandalized by them ? Besides, who 
would confess to those who might divulge his 
sins and destroy his character ? 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Is there any example in Scripture to 
prove that the first Christians confessed their 
sins ? 

A. Yes ; the 19th chapter of the Acts tells 
us, that many who believed came, " confessing 
and showing their deeds" 

Q. What did the Apostles require of them 
besides confession ? 

A. " That many of them who had followed 
curious arts/' should bring their books together 
and burn them. 

Q,. What do you infer from this passage 1 

A. That St. Paul and the converts of Ephe- 
sus were thoroughly Catholics in this matter, 
seeing that they did exactly what the pastors 
of the Catholic Church and their people do at 
the present day, in the same circumstances. 

Q. Is it clear, from the Fathers of the An- 
cient Church, that private confession was al- 
ways practised ? 

A. Yes ; St. Cyprian, in his Sermon, (de 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 241 

Lapsis,) says : " My dear brethren, let every 
one, whilst he is yet in life, and in a state to 
profit by the advice and assistance of the priest, 
confess his sins." St. Basil (in Quaest. Brev. 
Reg. 228, 229) remarks : " Our sins must 
necessarily be confessed to those to whom has 
been committed the dispensation of the mys- 
teries of God/ 5 

Q. What are St. Ambrose's words ? Lib. 
ii de Pcenit. chap. 6. 

A. " If you obtain grace, confess your sins, 
for an humble confession bursts all the chains 
of sin." 

Q. What says St. Chrysostom ? Lib. iii 
de Sacerd. 

A. " The Jewish priests could not cure the 
leprosy of the body, they merely declared it 
cured ; but the Christian priest does not merely 
declare, but effects the cure of the leprosy of 
the soul." 

Q. What says St. Augustine ? Horn, xlix, 
T. 10. 

A. " Let no one say, I sin secretly ; I do it 
before God, he knows my heart and will par- 
don me. Did Christ then say without reason : 
' What you shall loose upon earth, shall be 
loosed in heaven ?' Were the keys then given 
to the Church for no purpose ?" See also St. 
Jerome, Expos, in Ezech. cap. 10. 

21 



242 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Why did the Lutherans abolish confes- 
sion ? 

A. Because, says the Confession of Augs- 
burg, " no man can remember all his sins." 

Q. Is this a good and valid reason ? 

A. Certainly not ; since the Catholic Church 
only requires, that her children be sorry for all 
their sins, and confess all that, after earnest and 
careful examination of conscience, they can 
bring to their recollection. 

Q. Was the above the real reason why Prot- 
estants abandoned confession ? 

A. No ; they abolished it, first, because it 
was troublesome, and they did not wish to 
carry their cross ; secondly, because their pas- 
tors were not lawfully ordained and commis- 
sioned priests, and hence, as they had not the 
power to absolve, confession to them was use- 
less ; thirdly, the thing which they called the 
Reformed Church taught them, that faith alone 
was quite sufficient to save them, — hence, it 
was useless to practise confession or any other 
Scriptural precept ; fourthly, these ministers 
were bound by no law to keep secret the sins 
confessed to them, — hence, their people would 
be fools to put any thing in their power. 

Q. Does the Church of England teach any 
thing on this subject ? 

A, Yes ; the Book of Common Prayer teaches 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 243 

both confession and the power of absolving ; and 
even the Kirk of Scotland, (see Confess, of 
Faith, Visit, of Sick,) whose ministers have 
certainly no ordination, would willingly lead 
their people to confess. But these spurious 
Churches have never succeeded in this attempt. 



ON EXTREME UNCTION. 



Q. Where does the Scripture mention the 
sacrament of Extreme Unction ? 

A. In James, chap, v, 14 — " Is any one sick 
among you, let him bring in the priests of the 
Church, and let them pray over him, anointing 
him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the 
prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the 
Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, 
they shall be forgiven him." 

Q. What do you conclude from these words ? 

A. That, according to Scripture, every Chris- 
tian in danger of death should be anointed by 
the priests of the Church. 

Q. What would you say to a Protestant 
touching these words of St. James ? 

A. You boast, I would say, eternally about 
following the Scripture, to the letter, in every 



244 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

thing ; how is it, then, that you never anoint 
one of your sick, whilst you are aware that 
there is an express command in the Scripture 
to this effect ? 

Q. May not Protestants say, that this pas- 
sage °f St. James is to be understood of a mi- 
raculous unction, like that in St. Mark, chap. 
vi, 13 — " And they cast out many devils, and 
anointed with oil many that were sick and 
healed them ?" 

A. No ; this passage is rather a confirmation 
of our doctrine ; for the Apostles, through the 
sacraments, often wrought miracles, as in the 
19th chap, of the Acts, St. Paul works miracles 
through Confirmation. These miracles were 
not an essential part of the sacraments ad- 
ministered, — they were an extraordinary ex- 
hibition of God's power to induce an unbe- 
lieving world to admit, not only the sacraments 
so miraculously established, but to admit also 
the truth of Christianity. When, however, the 
world was converted, these wonderful accom- 
paniments of the sacraments were no longer 
necessary. 

Q. Have you any other reply to make on 
this matter ? 

A. Yes ; the words of St. James are so clear 
that it is impossible to explain them away. By 
these words, all priests are ordered to anoint ; 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 245 

from St. Mark this does not appear : 2dly, By 
the words of St. James all the sick are to be 
anointed; from St. Mark it is only clear that 
many were anointed : 3dly, This duty of anoint- 
ing the sick is, by St. James, expressly confined 
to the priest ; whilst the gift of healing maladies 
and sicknesses, in St. Mark, is given to others, 
as well as to the pastors of the Church : Finally, 
the unction mentioned by St. James, is to pro- 
duce the effect of saving by the remission of 
sin, which proves it evidently to be an institu- 
tion of Jesus Christ ; for only He, by a material 
mean, can produce such an effect. Now, such 
effects are not at all attributed to the unction 
mentioned by St. Mark. 

Q. Does not the word Presbyter mean Elder 
in the above passage 1 

A. Certainly not in the Protestant sense. 
The pastors of the Church were, in the primi- 
tive ages, called Presbyters ; because they 
were generally elderly men ; such things as 
Kirk elders (anomalous beings, who are neither 
ecclesiastics nor laymen) were unknown in the 
Church, until Protestantism made its appear- 
ance. But what sets the matter at rest, is the 
circumstance, that the Apostles are called Pres- 
byters in 1 Peter, v, 1 ; in 2 John, i, 1 ; and in 
3 John, i, 1. 

Q. Is Extreme Unction a sacrament ? 
21* 



246 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Clearly ; because it is a visible sign, which, 
by Divine institution, confers invisible grace. 

Q. What is the sensible sign ? 

A. The anointing with holy oil, accompanied 
by prayer — " Let them pray over him, anoint- 
ing him with oil in the name of the Lord." — 
James, v. 

Q. What is the invisible grace given ? 

A, The sanctifying grace of God, by which 
sin is washed away and forgiven ; the actual 
grace of God, by which the soul is strengthen- 
ed, and sometimes the restoration of the body 
to health, according to these words — " And the 
prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the 
Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, 
they shall be forgiven him." 

Q. How do you show that Christ instituted 
this sacrament ? 

A. Protestants must be very ignorant to ask 
this question. They believe St. James to be 
an inspired Apostle ; and can they for a mo- 
ment imagine, that such a man would even 
speak of a rite, by which man is to be saved, 
raised up, and forgiven his sins, unless as an 
Apostle, taught by the Redeemer himself, he 
had the express institution and authority of his 
Divine Master ? 

Q. Do the Fathers mention this sacrament 
in their writings ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 247 

A. St. Augustine, Serm. 215 de Temp., says : 
"As often as sickness happens, the sick man 
should receive the Eucharistical sacrament, 
and then the unction of his body, in order to 
comply with the words of the Apostle James, 
v chap. — ' Is any sick amongst you,' " &c. 

Q. Did the Church of England ever use 
this rite ? 

A. Yes ; in the first Liturgy of Edward the 
Sixth, the use of Chrism and Extreme Unction 
is ordered. (See order for Visit, of Sick, 
page 114.) 



ON HOLY ORDERS. 



Q. Who sends the pastors of the Church ? 

A. Christ himself sent the first pastors, in 
these words : " Going, therefore, teach ye all 
nations, baptizing them," &c. These first pas- 
tors, aided by the Spirit of God in making their 
selection, appointed their successors ; and thus, 
through the chief bishop of the Church, the 
body of pastors have continued down to the 
present day. 

Q. May not any man set himself up for a 
Christian teacher, if he be chosen by the peoj)le 9 
as the Presbyterian ministers are ? 



248 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Certainly not ; since St. Paul says, Heb. 
v, 4 : " Neither doth any man take the honor 
to himself, but he that is called (not by the 
mob, but) by God as Aaron was." " How can 
they preach/' says St. Paul again — Rom. x, 15 
— " unless they be sent ?" 

Q. Have you any other texts on this subject ? 

A. In St. John, chap, x, Christ says : " For 
he that entereth not by the sheepfold, but 
climbeth up another way, the same is a thief 
and a robber." Again — Matth. xv, 14 — those 
who intrude themselves into the pastoral office, 
are represented as " blind leaders of the blind," 
who, with their unfortunate followers, will " fall 
into the pit." 

Q. What are the principal duties of the 
pastors of the Church ? 

A. To preach the Gospel, — Matth. xxviii, 
19 ; to baptize, — Matth. xxviii, 19 ; to offer up 
the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, — Luke xxii, 
19 ; to forgive sins by the power with which 
God has invested them, — John xx, 22 ; and to 
administer the holy sacraments of which we 
are now treating. (See texts quoted, as regards 
each sacrament.) 

Q. Did the Apostles communicate their sa- 
cred powers to those who succeeded them ? 

A. This is clear from the words of Christ, 
who said he would be with them all days, even 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 249 

to the consummation of the world. Now, he 
could not be with the Apostles all days, as the 
pastors of his Church ; therefore, he meant that 
he would be with them and their successors all 
days, even to the end. Besides, we hear St 
Paul — Acts xx, 28 — address the chief pastors 
who were to succeed him in these words : 
" Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole 
flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you 
bishops to rule the Church of God." In fine, 
the religion of Christ was to be the religion of 
all time ; therefore, of necessity, it must have, 
at all times, pastors ordained and sent as the 
Apostles were. 

Q. Are bishops superior to priests in au- 
thority and jurisdiction ? 

A. Certainly ; as much superior to the priests 
as the Apostles were to the other disciples. 
When Judas fell from the Apostleship, the other 
Apostles elected and raised Matthias to his 
place, according to that prophecy — " His bishop- 
ric let another take." — Acts i, 16-24. St. Paul 
— Acts xx, 28 — says, the bishops are to rule 
the Church of God. In 1 Tim. v, 19, he says: 
" Against a priest, receive not an accusation, 
but under two or three witnesses ;" from which 
the superiority of bishops is more than evident, 
as they are here constituted the judges of the 
priesthood. 



250 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Where, in the sacrament of holy orders, 
have we the outward sign ? 

A. In the imposition of the bishop's hands, 
the delivery of the necessary instruments, and 
prayer. Read the ordination of the seven 
Deacons, — Acts vi, 6 ; and that of SS. Paul 
and Barnabas, — Acts xiii, 3. 

Q. Where does it appear that inward grace 
is conferred in this sacrament ? 

A. In 1 Tim. iv, 14, where St. Paul says to 
Timothy : " Neglect not the grace that is in 
thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the 
imposition of the hands of the priesthood ;" 
and in 2 Tim. i, 6 : " Stir up the grace of 
God which is in thee by the imposition of my 
hands!' 

Q. Who has the power to ordain priests ? 

A. None but bishops. 

Q,. How do you prove this ? 

A. From Titus i, 5, where St. Paul says to 
Titus, bishop of Crete : " For this cause I left 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order 
the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain 
priests in every city, as I also appointed thee ;" 
and from 1 Tim. v, 22, where St. Paul tells that 
bishop of Ephesus " not to impose hands lightly 
on any man." 

Q. Can you establish the superiority of 
bishops from tradition ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 251 

A. Very clearly; from the very establish- 
ment of Christianity down to the time of Lu- 
ther, we defy any adversary to name even one 
person considered a priest, who was not or- 
dained by some bishop. 

Q. What do the Fathers say ? 

A* St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostles, 
who succeeded St. Peter in the See of Antioch, 
says, Epist. ad Trail. : " Reverence your bishop, 
as Christ himself, like as the blessed Apostles 
have commanded us ; for who is the bishop, 
but he who has all power and principality over 
all." Again — Ep. ad Magnes. — •" It becomes 
you to obey your bishop, and in nothing to re- 
sist him, .... whether you be priest, deacon, or 
laic." St. Cyprian, Ep. 55, says : " Heresies 
and schisms rise from no other source, but dis- 
obedience to the chief pastors." Tertullian, 
Lib. de Bap. cap. 17, writes : " The bishop, 
indeed, has a right to give baptism, and next 
the priests and deacons, but not without the 
authority of the bishops." 

Q. What says St. Epiphanius — Con. Ae- 
rius ? 

A. That the 65 Heresy, condemned by the 
Church, consisted in maintaining, as Aerius had 
done, that the powers of the bishop and the 
priest were equal. He adds, that there is this 
difference between the bishops and priests, — 



252 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that the priests are the spiritual fathers of the 
people by baptism, whilst the bishops are the 
spiritual fathers of the priests by ordination. 

Q. What was done at the Council of Alex- 
andria ? 

A. All the ordinations of Colluthus were de- 
clared null, because he was only a priest. 

Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 

A. That none but Catholics have true and 
real priests or pastors ; because, in other 
Churches, the ministers are not ordained at all, 
or ordained by men whose Episcopal ordination 
is doubtful ; hence, I conclude also, that secta- 
rians are deprived of the greater part of the 
sacraments, — their ministry is not of divine 
appointment but self-constituted, and their 
Church forms no part of the Church of Christ. 
" Where there is no Episcopal ordination/' 
says the Protestant Dodwell, " there is no min- 
istry, no sacrament, no Church." 



ON MATRIMONY. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Has marriage all the necessary constitu- 
ents of a sacrament ? 

A. It has the outward sign, in the mutual 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 253 

consent of the parties, externally signified ; ac- 
companied by the other conditions which the' 
ecclesiastical law requires. The inward grace 
is that which enables the married couple to 
discharge their duties faithfully and in a Chris- 
tian manner to one another, and to train up 
their children in the fear of God ; and the* 
Divine institution is evident from Matth. xix, 6, 
where it is said, " Wherefore they are no more 
two, but one flesh ; what therefore God hath 
joined together let no man put asunder." 

Q. How does it appear that grace is con- 
ferred in the sacrament of marriage ? 

A. In the first place, you see from Matth. 
xix, quoted above, that God is the author of 
marriage, and surely you will admit, that he 
will give to those whom he joins in this holy 
union, such graces as will enable them to dis- 
charge the duties of it. 2dly, St. Paul express- 
ly says, Ephes. v, 32 : " This is a great sacra- 
ment, but I speak in Christ and in the Church," 
— that is, that marriage is, in the New Law 
of Christ and in his Church, a great sacra- 
ment ; for the passage would not make sense, if 
this be not its meaning ; what, if marriage be 
not the great sacrament here alluded to — what 
is this great sacrament in Christ and the 
Church ? — Christ himself and his Church can- 
not be a great sacrament in Christ and the 

22 



254 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Church ; but if marriage be this great sacra- 
ment, then every sacrament confers grace. 

Q. What does St. Paul say, in the preceding 
verses 24 and 25, of same chapter ? 

A. " Therefore, as the Church is subject to 
Christ, so also let the wives be to husbands in 
all things. Husbands, love your wives, as 
Christ also loved the Church and gave himself 
up for it, that he might sanctify it." Here the 
union of man and wife is likened to the union 
of Christ and the Church ; but the union of 
Christ and the Church is not only a union of 
love, but also of grace ; therefore, such also is 
the union of man and wife. 

Q. Do not Protestants translate the above 
word " sacrament" by " mystery" in Ephes. 
v, 32 ? 

A, Yes ; but they had an object in doing so ; 
they wished to deny the sacrament of marriage ; 
and to show them that they have made non- 
sense of the text, you have only to ask them, 
\vhat mystery there is in marriage, if it be not 
a sacrament ? and, if not a sacrament, how is 
it greater " in Christ and the Church," than it 
was at any former period of the world ? St. Au- 
gustine reads sacrament ; and St. Jerome, who 
restored the New Testament to the truth of the 
Greek, and the Old, to the truth of the Hebrew, 
who lived fourteen hundred years ago, and 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 255 

who was one of the greatest linguists of that 
or any other age, — this St. Jerome reads 
" sacrament" for " mystery." 

Q. What does St. Augustine say as to the 
sacrament of Matrimony — De- Bono Conjug. 
cap. 18, T. vi, p. 335; Ibid, a. xxiv, p. 337, 
and c. x de Nupt. ? 

A. He says — " In the marriage of our women, 
the sanctity of the sacrament is of the greatest 
weight ;" and again — " In alii nations, the great 
good of marriage consists in the propagation of 
children and the fidelity of the parties ; but 
among Christians, there is,, besides, the holi- 
ness of the sacrament." Tertulliaii also, in 
his Treatise de Monog^ expressly calls matri- 
mony a sacrament. St. Ireneus, Adv. Haeres, 
lib. i, cap. 1 — says : " By all means they ought 
to meditate on the sacrament of marriage." 
St. Cyril adds— Cap. 2, in Joan. 22 : " Christ 
sanctified wedlock, and gave grace to marriage." 
St. Ambrose — Lib. i de Abraham, and in Cap. 
5 ad Ephes. — writes : " There is a great sacra~ 
ment in the union of man and wife." 

Q. Are all Christians bound to marry by 
the command of God I 

A. Certainly not ; for if they were, St. Paid 
has given a very bad advice. 

Q. Repeat his words — 1 Cor. chap, vii, 8. 

A. " But I say to the unmarried and to the 



256 A DOCTRINAL, CATECHISM. 

widows, it is good for them if they so continue 
even as L" 

Q. Does not the Apostle say, in same chap- 
ter, verse 2, " But for fear of fornication, let 
every man have his own wife, and let every 
woman have her own husband ?" 

A. Yes ; but in verse 1st, he says, " It is 
good for a man not to touch a woman ;" and in 
verse 9th, " But if they do not contain them- 
selves, let them marry." Hence, the Apostle's 
meaning evidently is, that those who do not 
feel, that, with the help of God's grace, they 
can live chaste lives, ought to marry, and that 
once married, each man should confine himself 
to his own wife, and each wife to her own hus- 
band. Indeed, in same chapter, verse 27, St. 
Paul says, "Art thou loosed from a wife, 
seek not a wife ;" and, in several passages, he 
exhorts all who are able, to live, like himself, a 
single life. (See chap, vii, ver. 7.) 

Q. Does not God order Adam and Eve, and 
the whole human race, in Genesis, to increase 
and multiply ? 

A. This is not a command to all, but a bless- 
ing by which God accords fecundity to all 
that shall marry. Those Protestants who un- 
derstand it as a command, must charge St. 
Paul, one of God's inspired Apostles, with 
breaking the law of God. With what face can 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 257 

Protestants bring forward such nonsense, see- 
ing that a great number of themselves never 
marry ; and what will they do with those wha 
cannot get married ? 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. Does the Catholic Church forbid any 
one to marry ? 

A. No, she leaves every one at liberty to do 
as he thinks proper. 

Q. Does she not forbid the marriage of 
priests ? 

A. She forbids priests to marry, but she 
obliges no one to become a priest. 

Q. To what does she oblige those who enter 
into Holy Orders ? 

A. To keep the vow of chastity,, which they 
have voluntarily, and after mature deliberation, 
made to God. 

Q. Why does she oblige them to this ? 

A. That they may be more at liberty to 
discharge their duties to their flock, and that 
they may be totally disengaged from temporal 
matters. These advantages of the unmarried 
priest over the married Protestant minister, were 
acknowledged, even by Protestants, during the 
prevalence of that terrible pestilence, the Cholera, 
and are still openly visible to all, when typhus 

22* 



258 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

fever and other contagious diseases scourge our 
population. 

Q,. Does St Paul clearly urge these advan- 
tages in 1 Cor. chap, vii, 32 ? 

A. Yes ; he says — " But I would have you 
without solicitude : he that is without a wife is 
solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, 
how he may please God; but he that is with a 
wife is solicitous for the things of the world, 
how he may please his wife, and he is divided" 
(Read also verse 34.) 

Q. In any of the early ages of the Church, 
were bishoj)S or priests permitted to marry 
after entering into holy orders ? 

A, No ; we defy our adversaries to name 
even one such case. 

Q. What are the words of the Second Canon 
of the 2d Council of Carthage ? 

A. " That bishops, priests, and all who are 
charged with the administration of the sacra- 
ments, must lead continent lives." 

• Q. What reason does the Council give for 
this ordinance ? 

A. " This," adds the Council, " was taught 
by the Apostles, and has been always practised 
by the Church." 

Q. What do you infer from all that has 
been said on this subject ? 

A. That reason, antiquity, and Scripture, are 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 259 

all on the side of Catholic doctrine and prac- 
tice. 



ON THE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Why does the Church make use of so 
many different ceremonies ? 

A. First, to give external expression to the 
interior sentiments of respect, devotion, and 
religion ; secondly, to enliven and increase de- 
votion and piety by moving and striking the 
senses ; thirdly, to lead the simple and illiterate 
more easily to a knowledge of the mysteries of 
religion. 

Q. Is there nothing superstitious in these 
ceremonies ? 

A. There was nothing superstitious in the 
ceremonies of the Old Law, why then should 
there be any thing superstitious in those of the 
New ? 

Q. Is the use of ceremonies authorized by 
Scripture ? 

A. St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv, 14, says : " Let all 
things be done decently and according to or- 
der ;" and the ceremonies of the Church con- 
tribute much to these ends. 



260 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. What would you say to a Protestant 
who condemns ceremonies ? 

A. You make them, I would reply, contrib- 
ute to the decency, solemnity, and grandeur 
of the court, the camp, the bar, and the civic 
festival, and yet you would banish them from 
the service of God ; your ball-room, your dining- 
room, and drawing-room, are all ceremony, and 
this to add to your dignity and grandeur in the 
eyes of men, and you would rob God's service 
of the solemnity and grandeur to which proper 
ceremonies so much contribute. 

Q. Have you any other reply ? 

A. Your whole service, I would say, is only 
one great ceremony ; — why build Churches, 
when you can serve God at home ; — why go 
to Church, when, in your own dwelling, you 
can study the Bible, and when your interpreta- 
tion is as good and as correct as that of your min- 
ister ; — why have your children baptized, since 
many of you maintain, that baptism is only a 
ceremony — that it does not remit original sin ; 
— why receive the sacrament in the Church, if 
it be only a bit of bread and wine, which you 
may receive at home ; — why do you stand un- 
covered when the minister prays, when sitting 
is more convenient and less troublesome ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 261 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. Why are wax tapers blessed and burnt 
on the Festival of the Purification in our 
churches ? 

A. To put us in mind, that our Saviour, who 
is the light of the world, appeared, for the first 
time, on that day, in the Temple. 

Q. Why are ashes distributed on Ash- 
Wednesday, the first day of Lent ? 

A. To remind us, that we are only dust and 
ashes, and that we ought to enter upon that 
season, in which Jesus was humbled and mor- 
tified for our sake, with an humble and morti- 
fied spirit. 

Q. Why are Palm branches blessed and 
distributed on the Sunday before Easter ? 

A. To remind us of the triumphant entry of 
our Saviour into Jerusalem. 

Q. Why are bells of churches baptized? 

A. They are not baptized ; they are only 
blessed in the same manner as churches. 

Q. Why are bread, wine, eggs, and other 
things blessed? 

A. To induce the Almighty to shower down 
his benedictions upon those who use them. 

Q. When things are consecrated to the ser- 
vice of God, do they, in reality, become more 
sacred ? 



262 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. Yes ; for Christ says — Matth. xxiii, 17, 
19 — " Ye foolish and blind, for whether is 
greater, the gold, or the Temple which sancti- 
fieth the gold ? Ye blind, for whether is greater, 
the gift, or the altar which sanctifieth the gift ?" 
Where you see the gold sanctified by the Tem- 
ple, and the gift by the altar. 

Q. Does the Scripture allow the sanctifying 
or blessing of inanimate things ? 

A. Certainly ; for St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv, 4, 5, 
says : " Every creature of God is good, .... 
for it is sanctified by the word of God and 
prayer/ 9 

Q. What does St. Gregory of Nyssa say ? 
(Orat. de Bap. Jesu Christi.) 

A. " The mystical oil and wine before bene- 
diction are common things and of no virtue, but 
after benediction both of them have a great 
virtue." 

Q. Is it not a superstitious practice to make 
use of inanimate things for religious purposes, 
to procure blessings ? 

A. Certainly not ; for the Scripture would, 
in that case, teach superstition. 

Q. Where does the Scripture authorize this 
practice ? 

A. St. Mark, chap, vi, 13, says : "And they 
cast out many devils, and anointed with oil 
many that were sick and healed them/' In St. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 2G3 

John, chap, v, 4, we have — " And an angel of 
the Lord descended at certain times into the 
pond, and the water was moved, and he that 
went down first into the pond after the motion 
of the water was made whole of whatsoever in- 
firmity he lay under." 

Q. Have you any thing in 4 Kings, chap, 
v, 10, on this subject? 

A. Yes ; — " And Eliseus sent a messenger 
to him, saying, Go, and wash seven times in the 
Jordan, and thy flesh shall recover health, and 
thou shalt be clean ;" and in verse 14th, the 
order is complied with, and he is made clean. 



CHAPTER III. 

Q. Whence has holy water its virtue ? 

A. From the prayers of the Church used in 
blessing it, and from the prayers and piety of 
those who use it. 

Q. What are these prayers ? 

A. The priest, in blessing it, prays, that 
against those who use it, the intrigues of the 
devil may be defeated by the Holy Spirit of 
God ; and the people, whilst using it, pray in 
these beautiful words — " Sprinkle me, O Lord, 
with hyssop, and 1 shall be cleansed, wash me, 
and I shall become whiter than snow." 



264 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Is the use of holy water of very ancient 
origin in the Church of God ? 

A. It is mentioned in the 5th chap, of Num- 
bers — " And he (the priest) shall take holy 
water in an earthen vessel." In Num. chap, 
viii, 7, it is again mentioned — " Let them be 
sprinkled with the water of purification." (See 
also Exod. chap. 19th and 30th.) 

Q. May holy water be used under the New 
Law? 

A. Certainly ; for every creature of God may 
be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. 
1 Tim. iv, 5. 

Q. Did the early Church use it ? 

A. It is mentioned in the Apostolical Instit., 
Lib. viii, cap. 35 ; St. Cyprian, Lib. i, Ep. 12 ; 
St. Jerom, Ep. 12 ; St. Basil de Spiritu Sancto., 
cap. 27 ; St. Greg. Mag., Lib. ix, Ep. 71 ; St. 
Epiphan. Haer. 30 ; Euseb., Lib. v, cap. 21. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Why do Catholics make the sign of the 
Cross upon themselves, and why is it so fre- 
quently used in the Church service ? 

A. Because it is a brief profession of the 
Christian faith, and its use is derived by uni- 
versal tradition from the Apostles. 

Q. How is it a profession of our faith? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 265 

A. As often as we make the sign of the 
Cross, repeating at the same time these words : 
" In the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost" — we profess ourselves 
followers of, and believers in, redemption by 
the Cross, and we at the same time profess our 
faith in the three Persons of the Adorable 
Trinity. 

Q. How do you prove that the use of this 
sign is as ancient as the Church itself? 

A. From the testimony of the early Fathers 
and writers : " At the commencement of all our 
actions, whether we come in or go out ; whether 
we go to dress, to the bath, to the table, or to 
rest ; whether we take a chair or a light, let us 
always begin by making the sign of the Cross 
on our foreheads. This practice is not com- 
manded by a formal law of the Scripture, 
but tradition has taught it, custom confirms 
it, and faith observes it." Tertul. de Corona, 
cap. 4. 

Q. Do any of the other Fathers mention it ? 

A. Origen says the same thing — Select, in 
Ezech. cap. 9. St. Cyril recommends the same 
practice to the faithful — Catech. 4. St. Basil 
— De Spirit. Sane. cap. 27, No. 66, expressly 
tells us that it is an apostolical tradition. 

Q. Why is the sign of the Cross made so 
often in the holy Sacrifice, the administration 

23 



266 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

of the Sacraments, the benedictions, and exte- 
rior worship of the Church ? 

A. To teach us, that every practice, every 
ceremony, rite, and service, has its virtue sole- 
ly through the merits and death of Jesus Christ 
upon the Cross, and that all God's graces are 
showered down upon us on account of his 
sufferings and his blood. 

Q. Were not the Christian Copts guilty of 
superstition in making the sign of the Cross 
with a hot iron on the foreheads of their chiU 
dren, and was not this the origin of the Catho- 
lic practice ? 

A. Protestants must be very ignorant to 
make this assertion. The sign of the Cross, 
not however made by any painful means, was 
universally used in the Church. The Copts 
made the sign of the Cross visible on the fore- 
heads of their children to prevent them from 
being stolen by the Mahometans. (See l'Abbe 
Renaudot.) 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. What do the vestments worn by the Priest 
signify ? 

A. Each of them signifies some accompani- 
ment of our Saviour's passion. The Amice signi- 
fies the piece of linen with which our Saviour was 
blindfolded — Matth. xxvi. The Alb represents 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 267 

the white garment with which Christ was, in 
mockery, clothed by Herod — Luke xxiii. The 
Girdle, Maniple, and Stole represent the cords 
and fetters with which Christ was bound — 
John, chap, xviii, 12, 24. The Chasuble repre- 
sents the purple garment which the soldiers put 
upon our Divine Saviour. 

Q. What is meant by the Cross marked on 
the Chasuble? 

A. It represents the Cross which our Saviour 
carried through the streets of Jerusalem. 

Q. What is meant by the corporal and the 
veil of the chalice ? 

A. They represent the linen clothes in which 
our Saviour's body was wrapped, whilst it lay 
in the tomb. 

Q. What does the altar signify ? 

A. Calvary, upon which our Saviour was 
crucified, and also the Table used for the Last 
Supper. 

Q. Why is the Missal carried before the Gos- 
pel from the right to the left side of the Altar? 

A. To commemorate the transference of the 
Gospel of Christ from the Jews who rejected 
it, to the Gentiles who received it. 

Q. Why do we stand during the reading of 
the Gospel ? 

A, To express our readiness to obey the 
orders of the Son of God. 



268 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Why does the priest put a drop of water 
into the wine in the Chalice ? 

A. To represent the union of the divine and 
human natures in Christ. 

Q. Why does the priest elevate the conse- 
crated elements ? 

A. To represent the elevation of the Cross 
after our Saviour was nailed to it. 

Q. Why does the priest divide the Host into 
three parts, and let one of them drop into the 
chalice ? 

A. To signify the separation of our Saviour's 
body from his blood and his soul from both ; 
and to represent the descent of his soul to 
Limbo, where the spirits were in prison. 

Q. Why does the priest pray sometimes in 
a low, and at other times in a loud voice ? 

A. Because Christ did so, whilst he was 
hanging on the Cross. 

Q. Why does the priest bless the people at 
the end of Mass ? 

A. To represent the benediction which our 
Saviour gave to his disciples before he as- 
cended to heaven. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Q. Why is Mass said in the Latin tongue 
and not in the vernacular ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 269 

A. In the first place, That the service of 
God may be everywhere uniformly the same ; 
secondly, That the same words and same pray- 
ers may be used in order to avoid the changes, 
to which all living languages are so much sub- 
ject ; thirdly, That the same language may be 
used over the whole Church, that the pastors 
of every country may understand one another, 
and that the people passing from one country 
to another may have no difficulty in joining at 
the public service, it being everywhere the 
same. 

Q. Are not the people injured by having the 
public service in a language which they do not 
understand ? 

A. By no means ; for surely God under- 
stands all languages, — prayers will reach His 
Throne, no matter in what language they may 
be uttered ; and as to the people, they have the 
prayers of Mass translated into their own 
tongue in their Prayer Books. 

Q. Does not St. Paul say — 1 Cor. chap, xiv, 
19, " But in the Church I had rather speak five 
words with my understanding, that I may in- 
struct others also, than ten thousand words in 
a tongue ?" 

A. Yes ; but St. Paul is speaking here of 
instruction, as is evident from the words — 
u That I may instruct others also ;" And the 

23* 



270 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Catholic Church in all her sermons, private 
prayers, and instructions, addresses her chil- 
dren in a language which they do understand. 

Q. Do not Protestants make frequent use 
of 1 Cor. xiv, against Catholics on this subject ? 

A. Yes ; but if Protestants would think be- 
fore they speak, they would see that this chap- 
ter has nothing to do with the question. St. 
Paul, in the whole of this chapter, is reprobating 
the vain display of miraculous tongues in 
preachings, exhortations, or instructions, made 
by recent converts, more to show their gifts 
than to glorify God or edify the people. 

Q. Can this chapter be turned against 
Protestants so as to support the Catholic prac- 
tice ? 

A. Yes ; in verse 5, St. Paul says — " For 
greater is he that prophesieth than he that 
speaketh with tongues, unless perhaps he inter- 
pret, that the Church may receive edification ;" 
now the Catholic service is interpreted for the 
use of all. Again, verse 13, — " Thereffore he 
that speaketh by a tongue, let him pray that 
he interpret ;" where speaking tongues is not 
found fault with, if interpretation follow. In 
verse 27, — " If any speak w r ith a tongue, .... 
let one interpret." In fine, in verse 39, the 
Protestant argument is annihilated by the 
Apostle. " Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 271 

prophesy, and forbid not to speak with 
tongues" 

Q. Is the Latin in reality an unknown 
tongue ? 

A. None but those who are very ignorant will 
venture to say that it is. In some countries it is 
still the vernacular tongue ; the learned of every 
country are acquainted with it ; and of all lan- 
1 guages it is, at least to a certain extent, the 
most universally known. 

Q. Is the custom of not performing the ser- 
vice in the vernacular tongue confined to the 
Catholic Church? 

A. No ; the Greek, Ethiopian, Indian, and 
Muscovite schismatics, say Mass in their an- 
cient, and not in their modern tongues. The 
Syrians and Egyptians say Mass in Syriac, 
though Arabic be their vulgar tongue. Arabic 
is the language of the Melchites and Georgians, 
though they say Mass in Greek. 

Q. Is there any other reason why the Mass 
should be said in Latin ? 

A. The Mass is the one sacrifice of the 
whole Church, foretold by Malachi, as an offer- 
ing to be made in every place under heaven : 
Hence, all Christians have, in the oneness and 
unchangeableness of the language in which it 
is offered up, a strict bond of union ; unity is 
preserved by uniformity of rite. 



272 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Is it necessary that all the people should 
understand every word used in the Liturgy ? 

A. Certainly not. It is only necessary that 
they should comprehend the nature of the ac- 
tion performed, and unite their intention and 
devotion with that of the priest. 

Q,. What do we find in the Jewish Church ? 

A. The Jews lost the use of the Hebrew 
language during the Babylonish captivity so 
entirely, that when Nehemias and Esdras read 
the Law from the Scriptures to the people they 
were obliged to interpret it, (Nehemias viii, 13.) 

Q. What do you infer from this ? 

A. The Jews spoke Syriac ; the Scriptures 
were not translated into that language until 
after the time of our Saviour; yet the He- 
brew T was still retained in the religious service 
of the Jews. Besides, from Levit. xvi, and 
Luke i, it is very evident that the people were 
not required to be even so near the priest as to 
be able to hear him ; for they were not allowed 
to be even in the Tabernacle when he prayed 
for himself and the whole congregation. 



ON PICTURES OR IMAGES. 



Q. What is the use of Images ? 

A. They serve, in the first place, to adorn 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 273 

the Church ; secondly, to instruct the ignorant ; 
and, thirdly, to excite devotion. 

Q. Do Catholics adore images ? 

A. No : Catholics adore God onlv. 

Q. Do Catholics invoke images ? 

A. No Catholic ever thought of such a thing. 
Catholics neither hope for, nor ask succor or 
grace from them. 

Q. What says the 25th Session of the Coun- 
cil of Trent ? 

A. That we honor pictures or images, not 
for any virtue these inanimate things possess, 
but on account of the originals which they 
represent. The honor is given to the original, 
not to the picture ; so that in uncovering the 
head, or kneeling before a picture of Jesus 
Christ, we honor and adore Jesus Christ him- 
self. 

Q. Does not the commandment forbid the 
making or the use of pictures or images ? 

A. No. It only forbids worshipping them as 
Gods. " Thou shalt not adore them nor serve 
them/' 

Q. If the Scripture condemned, as idolatry, 
the making or use of pictures or images, would 
not the Scripture contradict itself? 

A. Yes ; for in that case God himself would 
contradict his own command ; and in fact or- 
der that idolatry which, in the commandment, he 



274 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

had forbid — Exod. chap, xxv, 18: "God said 
to Moses, thou shalt make also two cherubims 
of beaten gold on the two sides of the oracle ; 
let one cherub be on one side, and the other on 
the other." See also 20, 21, 22 verses of same 
chapter. 

Q. We see here the likenesses of heavenly 
things made by the express command of God; 
did he anywhere order, in the same manner, the 
likenesses of earthly things ? 

A. In the same Exodus, chap, xxviii, 33, he 
does so : " And beneath, at the feet of the same 
tunic, round about, thou shalt make as it were 
pomegranates of violet, and purple, and scarlet, 
twice dyed, with little bells set between." See 
also 34, 35 verses ; and 3 Kings, (1 Kings, 
Prot. Trans.,) chap, vii, 23, 24, 25, 29. Again, 
3 Kings vi, 29 ; and 3 Kings x, 19. Read 
also Osee, (Hosea,) chap, iii, 4. 

Q. Did God ever use an image for miracu- 
lous purposes ? 

A. Yes ; in Num. xxi, 8, — " And the Lord 
said to him, (Moses,) make a brazen serpent, 
and set it up for a sign ; whoever being struck 
shall look on it, shall live ;" and in verse 9 you 
will see the miraculous effect produced. 

Q. You have said that pictures and images 
adorn the House of God, is it proper to adorn 
temples ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 275 

A. Certainly. The Royal Prophet says, 
Psalm xxv, 8, — " I have loved, O Lord, the 
beauty of thy house, and the place where thy 
glory dwelleth." And in 2 Kings vii, 2, (Protes. 
2 Sam.,) David is ashamed to dwell in a house 
of cedar, w r hilst the Ark of God is lodged within 
skins. See also Psalm cxxxi, 3, 4, 5. Catho- 
lics glory in the splendor of God's house and 
the grandeur of his service ; and in this they 
imitate the example of David and Solomon, 
(see opening of his temple,) rather than the 
niggardly parsimony of the traitor Judas, who 
wished to sell the box of precious ointment and 
give the price to the poor, and for which he 
received such a severe reprimand from Christ 
himself — John xii, 3, &c. 

Q. Why do Protestants strip the House of 
God of every ornament, whilst they are so pro- 
fusely liberal in the decoration of their own 
dwellings, and all their worldly monuments 
and public buildings? 

A. It is because their religion is essentially 
that of this world. They flatter themselves 
that they may obtain heaven at the least possi- 
ble expense. They give God's glory to them- 
selves and to their worldly heroes ; and their 
ministers are too much engaged in providing 
for wives and families, to give themselves any 
trouble about, or spend any of their incomes 



276 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

in, the erection or decoration of splendid tem- 
ples to the living God. 



ON RELICS. 



Q. In what manner do Catholics honor 
relics ? 

A. As precious remains, which bring to their 
remembrance distinguished sanctity, and as dear 
pledges, which animate their confidence in the 
communion and intercession of saints. 

Q. Did the first Christians honor relics? 

A. Certainly ; and it is from them that we 
have learned to do so. 

Q. Repeat St. Augustine's words — Epist. 
103, ad Quint. 

A. " I send you the relics of St. Stephen, to 
which pay due honor." St. Jerom wrote a 
whole book against Vigilantius, who w r as the 
first to deny honor to holy relics. 

Q. Have relics any secret or interior power 
or virtue ? 

JL No ; but God has often granted great 
favors through them. 

Q. Do Catholics adore or worship relics ? 

A. No ; this would be rank idolatry. All 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 277 

Catholics can, with a safe conscience, say, — 
" Cursed is he who commits idolatry, who prays 
to images or relics, or worships them for God." 

Q. Has God himself honored relics, and 
through them wrought astonishing miracles ? 

A. Yes ; the waters of the Jordan being 
struck by Eliseus with the mantle of Elias, 
suspended their course and afforded him a dry 
passage, — 4 Kings ii, 14, (Prot. ver. 2 Kings ii, 
14.) And, in the same chapter, verse 8th, the 
same astonishing prodigy was performed by the 
same means. Read the wonders performed by 
means of the rod of Moses, (Exod. vii.) See 
also 1 Kings, {alias Sam. v,) and also Sam. vi, 
19, as to the wonders God was pleased to per- 
form on account of the Ark, which was cer- 
tainly a mere relic. See also 2 Kings, {alias 
Sam. vi, 6, 7,) and 4 Kings, {alias 2 Kings xiii, 
21,) where the bones of the prophet Eliseus 
raised a dead man to life. 

Q. Are any such examples to be found in 
the New Testament ? 

A. Yes ; many such — Matth. ix, 20-21. 
The woman troubled with an issue of blood for 
twelve years is cured by touching the hem of 
our Saviour's garment. In Matth. xiv, 36, as 
many as touched the hem of his garment were 
made whole. In Acts xix, the handkerchiefs 
and aprons which had touched the body of St. 

24 



278 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Paul, removed diseases, and expelled devils. 
In fine, the shadow of St. Peter healed multi- 
tudes that were sick and troubled with unclean 
spirits. (Acts v, 15, 16.) 

Q. What inference do you draw from all 
this ? 

A. That Protestants show a lamentable ig- 
norance of Scripture, when they rail against 
holy relics. If God has so honored them, and 
has wrought such wonderful miracles by them, 
as honored instruments, under both the Old and 
New Law, should not all Christians honor 
them ; and may not those men be deemed 
wicked who despise the venerable instruments, 
used by the Almighty, to display the wonders 
of his power ? 



ON PILGRIMAGES. 



Q. Is there any spiritual advantage to be 
derived from religious pilgrimages ? 

A. Yes ; when they are performed in the 
spirit of true devotion. 

Q. What can be the use of a pilgrimage to 
any particular place, since God is every- 
where ? 

A, It is useful in this, that, though God is 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 279 

everywhere, some places are better calculated 
to excite devotion than others ; for example, 
the scenes of any of the great wonders or tri- 
umphs of Christianity, the Shrine of SS. Peter 
and Paul, the Crib of Bethlehem, or the thrice 
holy soil of Mount Olivet or Mount Calvary. 

Q. What succor does devotion find in a 
pilgrimage to such places ? 

A. We pray with more fervor, and are hum- 
bled more sensibly, when we find ourselves as 
grievous sinners wandering amongst the monu- 
ments of redemption. 

Q. Can we glorify God by doing, for his 
honor, what he has not commanded ? 

A. Certainly; David — 2 Kings xxiii 15, 16, 
17 — whilst he burned with an ardent thirst, 
poured forth the fresh water as an offering to 
the Lord; and, by this act of mortification, 
which was not commanded, he glorified God. 
The Blessed Virgin surely glorified God by her 
voluntary chastity, which was not commanded 
— (St. Luke, chap, i.) St. Paul glorified God 
by the voluntary chastisement of his body — 
(1 Cor. ix.) 

Q. Can you give us any Scriptural exam- 
ple of religious pilgrimages ? 

A. Elcana and Ann went every year to Silo 
to pray ; and the Blessed Jesus and his Virgin 
Mother made a pilgrimage every year to Jeru- 



280 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

salem to pray in the Temple. These surely 
are good and sufficient authorities. 



ON THE VENERATION OF THE EVER-BLESSED 
MOTHER OF JESUS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Do Catholics adore the Blessed Virgin 
Mary as they adore God ? 

A. No, this would be idolatry ; but Catholics 
honor her pre-eminent prerogatives with a de- 
gree of veneration infinitely inferior to that 
which is due to God, but much superior to that 
which is due to the angels and saints. 

Q. Why honor her at all? 

A. Jesus Christ himself — John xii, 26 — says, 
" If any man serve me, him will my Father 
honor ;" surely, then, even as God honors the 
Blessed Mary, for no one served his Divine 
Son with so great fidelity, our veneration for 
her cannot be misplaced. Even Dr. Pearson, 
a Protestant, (Exp. of Creed, p. 178,) says, — 
" We cannot bear too reverend a regard to the 
Mother of our Lord, so long as we give her 
not that worship which is due unto the Lord 
himself." 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 281 

Q. What do you discover so especially pre- 
eminent in the Blessed Virgin as to demand 
our especial veneration ? 

A. Immediately after the fall of man, the 
Almighty honors her by pointing her out, four 
thousand years before the event, as the person 
whose seed should crush the serpent's head. 
In Isaiah viii, 13, she is made again the subject 
of a prophecy, and the sacred lips of the Prophet 
of the Lord proclaim her virginity, — a virtue 
which in all ages has obtained the first degree 
of honor. 

Q. What do we find in Luke i, 26 ? 

A. We find she is chosen of all the daughters 
of Eve to be the Mother of Jesus, — the choice 
is made by the ADORABLE TRINITY, and 
an Archangel announces the wonderful tidings 
to her. 

Q. Is the heavenly message delivered by the 
i.ngel in such a manner as to give a strong 
proof of Mary's exalted dignity ? 

A. Yes ; for she is addressed in language 
so respectful as to leave no doubt about the 
matter. " Hail !" says the Angel, " Full op 
Grace, the Lord is with thee : Blessed art 
thou amongst women." 

Q. What think you of those Protestants 
who call the Blessed Virgin an ordinary wo- 
man? 

24* 



282 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. We pity them, we tremble for them. An 
Archangel, bearing the words of the Adorable 
Trinity upon his tongue, tells them they are 
blasphemers of the saints of God. They utter 
a falsehood in the face of that exalted crea- 
ture, — a falsehood in the face of the Angel, 
— nay, a falsehood in the very face of God 
himself. 

Q. Do the above passages of Scripture ex- 
hibit her as an ordinary woman ? 

A. No ; but the contrary. Is she an or- 
dinary woman who is made the subject of 
prophecy, — with whom the Blessed Trinity 
communes, — to whom that Blessed Trinity 
delegates an Archangel Messenger, — who is 
declared by the unerring lips of that Angel to 
be full of grace, — to have the Lord with 
her, — and, of all the women of the earth, to be 
peculiarly blessed ? 

Q. What should Protestants do to justify 
their language towards the Mother of God ? 

A. They should corrupt their Bible a little 
more, and make the Angel say, — " Hail, thou 
that art an ordinary woman, — thou hast no 
grace, — thou art not blessed more than others, 
— the Lord is as much with the wives and 
daughters of the holy reforming ministers as 
he is with thee." 

Q. What does Origen 3 who lived fourteen 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 283 

hundred years ago, say to our present pur- 
pose ? 

A. He says, — " ' Hail full of grace/ &c, is 
a salutation addressed to Mary alone." 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. What says Luke, i, 35, on this ques- 
tion ? 

A. " And the Angel answering, said unto 
her, (Mary,) the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee and the power of the Most High shall 
overshadow thee ; therefore also that Holy Thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God." 

Q. Does this passage prove the Blessed Vir- 
gin an ordinary woman ? 

A. Oh ! blush for shame, ye reforming pre- 
tenders to Scriptural knowledge ! Is she an 
ordinary woman, who holds direct intercourse 
with the three persons of the Adorable Trinity ? 
She whose son is the Son of God ? — she who 
is made the mother of the King of kings ? — 
she whose son, as the Angel tells her, shall be 
great, and shall be called the Son of the High- 
est, who shall sit on the throne of David, and 
reign over the house of Jacob for ever? 

Q. Does she not, in verse 34, show som& 



284 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

doubt, when she asks — "How shall this be? 
seeing that I know not man ?" 

A. Yes ; but the moment that the Angel 
tells her that the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
her, — that all is to be the work of the Most 
High, — she submits at once, and, with the most 
edifying docility and humility, exclaims — " Be- 
hold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto 
me according to thy word." 

Q. Is there any thing in the 40th verse of 
same chapter to throw additional light on the 
exalted dignity of the Blessed Mary ? 

A. Yes ; at the salutation of Mary, the babe 
leaped in Elizabeth's womb, and Elizabeth was 
filled with the Holy Ghost. 

Q. Did Elizabeth, filled thus with the Holy 
Ghost, and bearing in her womb the Baptist, 
than who none greater was ever born of wo- 
man, — did Elizabeth, who was made by God 
miraculously fruitful, — who knew, though not 
present at the angelic interview, what had passed 
between the Angel and Mary, — did this honor- 
ed, exalted, and inspired Elizabeth agree with 
Presbyterians in thinking the Blessed Virgin 
an ordinary woman ? 

A. No ; she would have shuddered at such 
language. She proclaimed Mary's blessedness, 
and, though exalted herself, she considered her- 
self highly honored by Mary's condescension in 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 285 

paying her a visit. " And Elizabeth spake out 
with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou 
among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
womb ; and whence is this to me, that the moth- 
er of my Lord should come to me ?" 

Q. Is there any other proof in this chapter, 
of Mary's pre-eminent dignity ? 

A. The poorest daughter of Eve is ennobled 
and exalted by becoming the mother of a king. 
How great, then, must be the dignity of Mary, 
who became the mother of the King of kings 
and Lord of lords ! And, when we consider 
that Jesus could not dwell in an unholy taber- 
nacle, how ineffably pure and exalted must 
Mary's spiritual state have been ! ! 

Q. Does not this chapter suggest still some 
other proof s of her extraordinary and singular 
dignity ? 

A. Yes ; she was troubled at the extraor- 
dinary nature of the angelic salutation ; but 
the Angel Messenger of the Most High calmed 
her fears, by declaring to her the exalted place 
she held in the estimation of the Most High. 
" Fear not, Mary, thou hast found grace with 
God." But the circumstance which proclaims 
above all others her singular pre-eminence is, 
her maternity combined with virginity. She 
is a virgin, and yet a mother ! ! ! This alone 
is sufficient to put to shame those unhappy* 



286 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

men who seem to glory in reviling the blessed 
mother of their Redeemer, by proclaiming her, 
whose Son they adore, as an ordinary woman. 

Q. What do we learn from Luke i, 18 ? 

A. That the ever-exalted and blessed Mary 
is a prophetess. She declares of herself that 
all generations shall call her blessed; and 
surely no one will be bold enough to say, that 
she, who was full of grace, and the temple of 
the Holy Ghost, could speak falsehood. 

Q. What inference would you draw from 
this revealed truth ? 

A. That Protestants belong not to the true 
people of God ; for they refuse to fulfil this 
prophecy. They glory in contemning the 
Blessed Virgin : they proclaim her an ordinary 
woman, instead of obeying the Scripture, which 
says, — " From henceforth all generations shall 
call me blessed." 

Q. Does not the Blessed Jesus despise Mary 
— John ii, 46 — in these words — " Woman, what 
have I to do with thee ?" 

A. Yes, according to the corrupt Protestant 
translation ; but according to the Vulgate, 
which even the Protestant Grotius considers 
the safest version, our Saviour's words are, — 
" Woman, what is it to thee and to me ?" 

Q. Is the Protestant translation absurd and 
ridiculous as they understand it ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 287 

A. Certainly ; for they would make our 
Saviour, whose example we are all bound to 
imitate, despise and contemn his own mother. 
She is honored by being asked with him to the 
marriage ; she was familiar with him previous- 
ly, for she asks him to work a miracle, which 
she clearly knows he can perform. She does 
not seem hurt by the apparent refusal of Jesus. 
But the solution of the whole difficulty is found 
in the fact, that he works the very miracle 
requested by Mary immediately after. Thus, 
he works his first miracle at the suggestion of 
Mary. In Luke ii, 49-51, he treats her with 
the greatest respect ; he forgets her not, when, 
even hanging on the Cross in the agony of 
death, he commends her with his last breath to 
the care of his beloved disciple ; and yet, after 
all this, Protestants would make us believe that 
he despised her, and treated her w r ith studied 
contempt at the marriage-feast of Cana! ! 

Q. What would you say to the difficulty, if 
the Protestant translation was correct ? 

A. He sometimes acted in his character as 
God, and sometimes as man, and, on this occa- 
sion, he wished to manifest that, as God, he 
knew their wants and would relieve them, in 
the same manner as, on another occasion, he 
said to Mary— "Didst thou not know that I 
should be about my Fathers business ?" 



288 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. What says St. Augustine (Serm. on the 
Announ.) as to the dignity of the Blessed 
Virgin ? 

A. " By what praises, O sacred Virgin, I 
may extol thee I know not, since thou hast 
been deemed worthy to bear in thy womb Him 
whom the heavens are unable to contain." 

Q. What says St. Epiphanius — Adv. Haeres. 
Lib. iii, F. 2 ? 

A. " Truly life itself was introduced into the 
world by the Virgin Mary, .... Eve brought to 
the human race the cause of death,. . . .Mary 
brought the cause of life." 

Q. Is the Greek schismatical Church one 
with the Catholic Church on this head ? 

A. Photius, its great leader, speaks thus, 
(Serm. de Nativ. :) " But you, O Blessed Vir- 
gin, and also Mother of the eternal Lord, our 
propitiation and refuge, interceding for us with 
your Son and our God, .... vouchsafe to ren- 
der us your panegyrists." See Counc. of Eph- 
esus and Nice, Act 6. 

Q. Is the veneration of the Blessed Virgin 
an ancient practice in the Church ? 

A. It can owe its origin only to the Apostles, 
for it can be traced to no later age ; no man, 
no body of men, no country, can be pointed 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 289 

out as having originated it ; hence, it is evi- 
dently Apostolical, and, consequently, it has 
the authority of heaven. 

Q. What general conclusion would you dram 
from all that we have said ? 

A. That Protestants, in their contempt for 
the Blessed Virgin, resist the irresistible evi- 
dence of their own Bible. Thev talk of her as 
an ordinary woman, whilst, in a flood of heaven- 
ly light, she shines the most singularly pre- 
eminent personage that ever was created. 
God himself makes honorable mention of her 
at the very dawn of the world ; — the prophet 
Isaiah, centuries before the event, proclaims 
her the illustrious Virgin Mother of the future 
Messiah ; — an all-wise Deity selects her, of all 
the daughters of Eve, to be the Mother of the 
Redeemer ; — the Blessed Trinity sends an 
Archangel to obtain her consent ; — she is sa- 
luted as full of grace ; — she is assured that the 
Lord is with her ; — that she is blessed among 
women ; — that the Holy Ghost will come upon 
her ; — that the Most High will overshadow her ; 
— that her son shall be called the Son of God; 
— that she has found grace with God ; — that, 
though a virgin, she shall conceive the Son of 
God, at once a Virgin and a Mother ! ! ! At 
the sound of her voice, the infant Baptist leaps 
in his mother s womb, and his mother is filled 

25 



290 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

with the Holy Ghost. The inspired Elizabeth 
salutes Mary in the very words of the Angel — 
"Blessed art thou among women;" and this 
Blessed Mary herself bursts forth in the spirit 
of prophecy, and foretells, that all generations 
shall call her blessed; and all generations, 
during fifteen hundred years, did so, and seven- 
eighths of Christianity do so at the present day. 

Q. It does appear strange, that Protestants 
will despise her, whom God has so pre-eminent- 
ly sanctified and exalted, — have you any ad- 
ditional considerations which may ham a ten- 
dency to make them blush for their rash and 
unscriplural conduct ? 

A. Yes ; many. For nine months did the 
Blessed Mary carry our Redeemer in her thrice 
holy womb ; — she suffered with him at the crib 
of Bethlehem ; — wept over his infant body, and 
wiped away his tears ; — she sorrowed when he 
bled in the temple ; — fled with him to Egypt ; — 
tended him during youth ; — and was sanctified 
by his Divine companionship during thirty- 
three years. She was the companion of all 
his sorrows, sufferings, and tortures : — her soul 
was transfixed by every wound he received ; 
— her tears were mingled with every drop of 
blood which he shed ; — a living monument of 
grief, she was found at the foot of the Cross, 
tvhen all had abandoned him. In the dying 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 291 

struggle of Jesus, we find her his anxious care ; 
— with his dying breath he commends her to 
the affectionate tenderness of his beloved disci- 
ple. She received into her arms his mangled 
and bloody body, and sorrowed with those who 
laid him in the tomb ; — she sought him early 
on the morning of the Resurrection, and was 
found among his Apostles on the day of his 
Ascension and on the day of Pentecost ; and 
even all this is not sufficient to induce wise and 
religious Protestants to regard with respect 
and veneration the Mother of Jesus ! 

Q. What should Catholics do in a country 
where torrents of blasphemous insults are every 
day poured forth against the Mother of God by 
men calling themselves Christian ministers ? 

A. They should have ever on their lips the 
sweet address of the Archangel Messenger, thus 
paraphrased by the holy Athanasius fourteen 
hundred years ago : " Be mindful of us, O 
Blessed Virgin ! Hail, full of grace, the Lord is 
w T ith thee ! Thee the angelical and terrestrial 
hierarchies proclaim blessed. Blessed art thou 
among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
womb. O mistress, lady, intercede for us ! 
Queen, and Mother of God, pray for us !" 



292 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 



ON PERSECUTION. 



Q,. Is persecution, on account of religious 
belief, a tenet of the Catholic religion ? 

A. Certainly not. Although some Catholics 
are said to have persecuted, if matters are care- 
fully examined, it will be found, that, in some 
instances, the persecutions arose out of the 
wicked spirit of revenge, and in others, that it 
was not religious opinion which was persecuted, 
but gross moral and political crimes. If Catho- 
lics have ever been guilty of persecution, the 
crime was their own, not that of their religion. 

Q. Did Protestants persecute Catholics? 

A. Yes ; in every country where the Re- 
formed doctrines were received, Catholics were 
persecuted. C. Peterson Hooft, a Protestant, 
reproaches his Protestant countrymen of Hol- 
land thus : " Actuated by a hatred of cruelty, 
you rush yourselves into acts of cruelty ; no 
sooner have you secured your freedom, than 
you wish to tyrannize over others. " — Hist. 
Reform. Ger. Brand., T. i, p. 333. Knox 
commenced the Reformation in Scotland, by 
being a party to the murder of Cardinal Bea- 
toun. (Ty tier's Hist, of Scotland.) In 1560, 
the Parliament established the Presbyterian re- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 293 

ligion, and ordered all the professors of the an- 
cient faith to be punished with jleath. " With 
such indecent haste," says Robertson, " did the 
very persons, who had just escaped ecclesiasti- 
cal tyranny, proceed to imitate the example." 
In 1596, the Presbytery, writing to the King 
and Council concerning the Earls of Huntly, 
Errol, &c, say that, " as they had been guilty 
of idolatry, a crime deserving of death, the 
civil power could not spare them." 

Q. Did the French Protestants persecute ? 

A. They rebelled against their sovereign, 
prohibited the Catholic religion, murdered the 
priests and religious, burnt the churches and 
convents, and dug up the dead to make bullets 
of their leaden coffins. (Maimbourg, Thuanus, 
Hist. Calv., Lib. 31.) Nic. Fromenteau, a 
Protestant, confesses, that in Dauphine alone, 
they killed two hundred and fifty-six priests 
and one hundred and twelve monks or friars. 
In these atrocities, the Protestant Baron des 
Adrets forced Catholic prisoners to jump from 
the towers upon the pikes of his soldiers, and 
obliged his own children to wash their hands 
in the blood of Catholics. (Liv. de Finance.) 

Q. Did Protestant England persecute Catho- 
lic Ireland ? 

A. Dr. Curry has preserved, amongst rnany^ 
other martyrs, the names of twenty-seven 

25* 



294 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

priests, who suffered death on account of their 
religion. (Hist, of Civil Wars in Ireland, vol. 
i, p. 8.) See Spondanus and Pagi on the mar- 
tyrdom of F. O'Hurle, the Catholic Archbishop 
of Cashel, a sanguinary deed, perpetrated by 
Sir W. Drury. See also Bourke's Hibernia 
Dominicana, where the number of Irish mar- 
tyrs, and the dreadful deaths they died, are 
given in detail. 

Q. Did not the Duke of Alva boast, that, in 
the Low Countries, he had delivered eighteen 
thousand heretics to the executioners ? 

A. These heretics should have been called 
rebels, since, according to the Protestant writer 
Brand, they had conspired against the life of 
the duke, then Spanish governor, and put to 
death, in cold blood, all the priests and religious 
they could lay their hands upon. See Brand, 
Hist. Reform, des Pays Bas. Feller, Hist. Diet 
art. Toledo, says, that Vandermerk slaughter- 
ed more unoffending Catholic priests and peas- 
ants in 1572, than Alva executed Protestants 
during his whole government. See also on this 
subject, Mons. Kerroux, U Abrege de VHist. de 
la Hollande. 

Q. Did not the 4th Lateran Council, in 1215, 
expressly ordain the persecution of heretics 1 

A. In the first place, Matthew of Paris (ad 
diet, ann.) denies that the supposed persecuting 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 295 

Canon was the act of that Council ; 2dly, even 
Dupin, who was more Protestant than Catho- 
lic, Tom. x, p. 104, says, "it is certain that this 
chapter (the persecuting Canon) is not the 
work of the Council ;" 3dly, the learned Prot- 
estant divine Collier, Eccl. Hist., vol. i, p. 424, 
declares, that the Canon in question " is spu- 
rious ? 4thly, supposing this Canon to be genu- 
ine, it was framed for a particular case, and 
not by the Ecclesiastical part of the Council 
alone, but by all the sovereigns of Europe, who 
were present at the Council, either by them- 
selves or by their ambassadors. 

Q. For what particular class of heretics 
was this Canon adopted ? 

A. It was framed to check the horrible 
brutalities of the Albigenses, who taught that 
there were two Gods — one good and the other 
evil ; — that no one could be saved in a married 
state ; — that unnatural gratifications should be 
substituted for those of marriage ; — that no kind 
of flesh-meat could be used without sin ; — they 
threw the Scriptures into the common sewers, 
and profaned horribly even the sacred vessels 
of the Altar. All these, and many other dread- 
ful impieties, they openly taught and practised, 
so that even Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. vol. hi, says : 
" Their shocking violation of decency was a 
consequence of their pernicious system ; they 



296 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

looked upon modesty and decency as marks of 
inward corruption." Such were the men so 
often pitied by Protestants as a persecuted race. 
See Limburch, Hist, of Inquis. See also Bos- 
suet's Var. 

Q. Did not the Council of Constance per- 
secute Wyckliff? 

A. He was treated very mercifully ; not- 
withstanding his seditious and impious doc- 
trines, he was left unpunished during his whole 
life. Dr. Fiddes, Life of Cardinal Wolsey, pp. 
38, 39, Protestant as he was, says : " It was not 
for their speculative opinions that the followers 
of Wyckliff were punished, but because they 
maintained opinions derogatory to the rights of 
princes, injurious to society, and contrary to 
law;" and Archb. Parker says: "The laws 
against them were necessary on account of the 
tumults they occasioned." 

Q. What were these impious and seditious 
doctrines of Wyckliff? were they such as to 
deserve prosecution 1 

A. He taught, 1st, that one mortal sin (an 
act of drunkenness for example) in a rector, 
bishop, magistrate, or sovereign, justified the 
people in disobeying and deposing these author- 
ities, (Walsingham, Hist. Ang. p. 283 ;) 2dly, 
that no civil laws were to be obeyed, no taxes 
paid, unless the justice of such laws could be 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 297 

proved from Scripture, (Walsing. ibid ;) 3dly, 
that no man could lawfully swear in a court of 
justice, (Walsing. page 204,) or confirm his 
own or his friends' title to an estate for ever, 
(Knyght, Col. 2707 ;) 4thly, that it was sinful 
in any clergyman to have one shilling's worth 
of property, (Knyght, Col. 2648 ;) 5thly, that 
his followers should despoil all that had proper- 
ty, (Walsing. p. 284 ;) 6thly, that God ought to 
obey the devil, (Knyght, Col. 2648 ;) 7thly, that 
colleges and universities were diabolical, (Con- 
dem. Coun. Constan., Art. 29 ;) 8thly, that it 
was unlawful to pray in churches, or keep the 
Lord's day, (Hypodig. Walsing. p. 557 ;) 9thly, 
that temporal princes should cut off the head 
of any Ecclesiastic w T ho sinned ; and that, if 
the prince himself sinned, the people should 
punish him, (Knyght, Col. 2657.) 

Q. Did this dreadful doctrine produce its 
bitter fruit ? 

A. In four years from the time he opened 
his mission, he and his followers produced, 
amongst the people, insurrection, plunder, mur- 
der, and civil war. The Chancellor, Primate 
Ludbury, Lord Treasurer Hales, and Chief 
Justice Cavendish, were murdered by the 
Wyckliffite rioters, and their intention was to 
kill the king himself and all the nobility, (Wal- 
sing. Hist. Ang. p. 265.) They fixed adver- 



298 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

tisements to the church doors in London, de- 
claring that they had raised one hundred 
thousand men, to combat those who did not 
agree to their opinions, (Walsing. Hist. p. 385.) 

Q. At least, John Huss and Jerom of Prague 
were put to death for heresy. 

A. Yes; but they caused violent seditions 
in Bohemia ; they excited a general insurrec- 
tion, — they deluged the country with blood. 
u The Hussites began by murdering the Mayor 
of Prague, then they overturned the govern- 
ment of the kingdom, after fighting several 
battles against their sovereign in the field, and 
after everywhere burning down monasteries, 
murdering the clergy, and even those who pro- 
tected them." — Aeneas. Sylv. ap Fleury. 

Q. But were not Huss and Jerom put to 
death by the Ecclesiastical Council of Con- 
stance ? 

A. No ; the Council excommunicated them, 
and declared it had no farther power regarding 
them, (Act. Counc. Sess. 15.) Nay, the 
Church, under her highest penalty, forbids any 
Ecclesiastic to concur in any sanguinary pun- 
ishment ; and hence, the bishops in the British 
Parliament leave the house, when trials of life 
and death are going on. 

Q. But were not these men burnt at the in- 
stance of the Council ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 299 

A. No ; they were committed to the flames 
by the magistrates, acting on the laws of the 
land, and by the order of the Elector Palatine 
and of the Emperor Sigismond, (L'Enfant, L. 
iii, § 48.) Nor had the Council any thing to do 
with their death ; its acts are still extant ; and 
we have its history by L'Enfant, a Calvinist, 
who does not even hint at si^ch solicitation on 
the part of the Council. 

Q. Was not the Council culpable in per- 
mitting the execution of these men, after grant- 
ing them a safe-conduct ? 

A. The Council could not prevent the exe- 
cution of seditious rebels ; John Huss had no 
safe-conduct, but merely a passport, promising 
him protection to and from the Council, (L'En- 
fant, Hist. Cons. L. i. parag. 41.) The Coun- 
cil was guilty of no breach of faith to Jerom, 
but he was guilty of flagrant perjury to the 
Council ; he publicly anathematized his own 
doctrine, and yet afterwards confessed that, 
at the time he denounced it, he believed every 
tittle of it in his heart. See the Calvinist 
L'Enfant, Lib. iv, parag. 75. 

Q. Are not the Protestants who were slaugh- 
tered on St. Bartholomew's day at Paris, an 
undeniable proof that thi Catholic Church 
persecutes ? 

A. Very far from it ; that massacre was 



300 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

caused by the unrelenting vengeance of Charles 
IX. and the bloody ambition of Catherine de 
Medicis. " On the day of this massacre an 
edict is published, in which the king de- 
clares, that whatever had happened was done 
by his express order, and not out of hatred to 
Protestants, but to put an end to the conspira- 
cy of the Calvinist Coligni and his nefarious 
companions." 

Q. What did the Cahinists do, which thus 
provoked the inexcusable vengeance of the 
king ? 

A. They were reported to the king, as hav- 
ing hatched a plot to overturn his government 
and destroy himself. They certainly attempted 
to seize the king, and overturn the constitution 
of his dominions, (Maimb. Lib. iv, Conspiracy 
of Amboise and Meaux;) they threatened to 
whip the king, and to make a mechanic of 
him, (Ibid. ;) they fought four battles against 
him, and treasonably delivered Havre de Grace, 
the key of his dominions, to Queen Elizabeth, 
a foreign potentate ; they murdered multitudes 
of priests, religious, and unarmed people, burned 
churches and monasteries, and made rivers of 
blood flow in the very streets of Paris, (Davila.) 
In the city of Pamiers, they murdered all the 
clergy who composed a procession on Corpus 
Christi. Heylin, Hist. Presb. Lib. ii. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 301 

Q. Did not the Bishops encourage the mas- 
sacre of St. Bartholomew ? 

A. No ; on the contrary, the bishop of Li- 
sieux opposed the execution of the king's order, 
saying : " It is the duty of the good shepherd 
to lay down his life for his sheep, not to let 
them be slaughtered before his face. These 
are my sheep, though they are gone astray, and 
I am resolved to run all hazards in protecting 
them." Maimb., Conten., Fleury, &c. 

Q. Did not Pope Gregory XIII. rejoice 
when he heard of this massacre ? 

A. If he did, it was because the matter was 
represented to him, not in its true colors, but 
as a victory gained by the king in a fair man- 
ner over impiety and sedition. Thuan. Lib. 
i ; Maimb. Lib. iv. " The Pope considered 
Charles's act, as a necessary act of self-defence 
against the infamous, treasonable, and bloody 
plot of the Calvinists, Coligni, &c, against his 
life and government." Pagi. Brev. Gest. Rom. 
Pant. vol. vi, p. 729. 



ON THE INQUISITION. 



Q. Is not the Inquisition a state engine em- 
ployed by the Catholic Church for the purpose 
of persecution ? 

26 



302 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. No ; the Church has not, and never had, 
any connection with the Inquisition, farther 
than this, that some of her members, through 
mistaken zeal, resorted to this cruel and un- 
warrantable means for the purpose of sup- 
pressing immoral, blasphemous, and infidel doc- 
trines. 

Q. Why do you say that the Inquisition is 
no part of the Catholic religion ? 

A. Because no such court existed till the 
twelfth century ; and in many Catholic coun- 
tries no such tribunal has ever existed ; whilst, 
in some of those where it was established, it 
has been long since suppressed. 

Q. Was not St. Dominic the founder of the 
Inquisition ? 

A. This is a Protestant calumny ; it was 
nowhere established till after his death. Mos- 
heim, Saec. xiii. 

Q. If some Popes and Bishops and Catho- 
lic Princes established and used this dreadful 
engine, it must certainly be a part of the 
Catholic religion ? 

A. No more than Queen Elizabeth's Court 
of High Commission, which the Dissenters of 
that period declared to be more intolerable 
than the Inquisition itself, was a necessary 
part of Protestantism. See Hume Hist. Eng v 
James II., c. vi ; Mosheim, vol. iv, p. 395. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 303 

Q. Was not the Inquisition, with Ecclesias- 
tics at its head, competent to pass sentence of 
the loss of limbs or of death ? 

A. No ; it had no such power. Very few 
receivedsentence of death at all from theRoman 
Inquisition ; there is not one such sentence re- 
corded ; and more blood was shed by the Cal- 
vinistic Huguenots of France on account of 
religion, than could have been shed by five 
hundred Spanish Inquisitions. 

Q. Why such an engine at all ? 

A. The rulers at that time were, in their 
wisdom, impressed with the idea, that it was 
the best mode of suppressing sacrilege, profana- 
tion, apostacy, magic, and other crimes, which 
are corporally punished in every countiy, 
whether Catholic or Protestant. How many 
witches did the Calvinist ministers burn in Scot- 
land, or the early Puritans in N. England ? How 
many Papists did they persecute and prosecute ? 
(Arnot's Hist, of Edinburgh.) 

Q. The Inquisition, then, is no essential 
part of the Catholic religion ? 

A. It is so far from being so, that most 
Catholics condemn it as loudly and as earnest- 
ly as Protestants themselves. It is a mere 
state engine, which certain rulers used as a 
matter of policy, not so much to put down 
heresy, as to check the seditions and immorali- 



304 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

ties that, in every age, were the consequences 
of heresy, an engine which Catholics in gen- 
eral denounce as opposed equally to policy, 
justice, and charity. 

Q. Have Protestants any right to be per- 
petually harping on the Inquisition ? 

A. As a matter of principle, they should 
come to the charge with clean hands ; living, 
as they do, in glass houses, they should not 
throw stones. What difference is there be- 
tween the jails, into which they cast thousands 
of Catholics, and the prison of the Inquisition ; 
and what difference between the deaths the 
unhappy victims on both sides died ? If Queen 
Mary put to death two hundred and seventy- 
seven Protestants for their rebellious opposition, 
Protestants have had ample revenge, through 
the first Protestant king, Henry VIII, who 
slaughtered sixty Catholics for denying his 
spiritual supremacy ; and through their merci- 
less Elizabeth, who persecuted, in most in- 
stances, to death, and in all to utter ruin, tw T elve 
hundred Catholics, for their faith ; and if Mary 
burnt her victims, Elizabeth hanged, quartered, 
embowelled, and burnt hers. See, for other 
examples of persecution, Lingard, vol. viii, reign 
of Elizabeth ; and for the penal laws against 
Catholics, vol. viii, p. 143. In fact, Catholics 
have experienced from the Protestants of these 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 305 

countries only one continued persecution more 
or less intense. They have been permitted to 
fight for the honor of a country and the securi- 
ty of a crown, which, in return, gave them no 
encouragement, and, till very lately, scarcely 
any protection. 



ON THE POWER OF A GENERAL COUNCIL, OR 
PAPAL CONSISTORY, IN TEMPORAL MAT- 
TERS. 



Q. Can a General Council frame new mat- 
ters, or articles of faith ? 

A. No ; a General Council can only explain 
what has been already revealed ; it belongs to 
God alone to reveal new articles of faith. 

Q. What if a General Council, or Papal 
Consistory, should undertake to depose a king, 
or absolve his subjects from their obedience? 

A. No Catholic is bound to submit to such 
a decree. Indeed, every Catholic may re- 
nounce, upon oath, any such doctrine, and this 
without the least breach of Catholic principle. 

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in 
himself to be infallible ? 

A. This is a Protestant invention ; it is no 
article of the Catholic faith ; no decision of his 
can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be 

26* 



306 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

received and enforced by the teaching body, — 
that is, by the Bishops of the Church. 

Q. Can the Pope absolve subjects from their 
allegiance on account of the heresy or schism 
of their king ? 

A. No ; such dispensation or absolution is 
null ; Catholics are still at liberty to defend their 
king and country at the hazard of their lives, 
even against the Pope himself. 

Q. Can Catholics lawfully kill their prince 
or king if he be excommunicated for heresy or 
schism ? 

A. Such an act is declared, by the Catholic 
General Council of Constance, damnable and 
heretical, as well as contrary to the known laws 
of God and nature. 

Q. Can the Pope, or any power in the 
Church, license men to lie, or forswear them- 
selves, — to injure their neighbors, or destroy 
their country, — under pretence of promoting 
the Catholic cause ? 

A. Such license can have no other effect, 
than to add sacrilege and blasphemy to the 
commission of the above crimes. 

Q. Are equivocation, or mental reservation, 
allowed by the Catholic Church ? 

A. No ; these are Protestant charges, in- 
vented for the purpose of exhibiting Catholics 
in odious colors. The Catholic Church never 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 307 

taught such unworthy doctrines ; on the con- 
trary, she disapproves and condemns them. 



ON THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



Q. Do Catholics forbid the reading of the 
Sacred Scripture ? 

A. No ; they only forbid the abuse of that 
thrice Holy Volume, which the Catholic Church 
has ever preserved and regarded as one of her 
most sacred deposites, and without whose pres- 
ervation the Protestant Church would never 
have had it. 

Q,. Is it forbidden to any one ? 

A. Yes, to those who would certainly abuse 
it, to those ignorantly proud people, of whom 
St. Peter speaks, where he says, (2 Pet. i, 20,) 
that certain parts of St. Paul's Epistles " are 
hard to be understood, which the unlearned 
and unstable wrest, as also the rest of the 
Scriptures, to their own perdition/' 

Q. Why are not all permitted to interpret 
the Scripture as they will ? 

A. Because (2 Pet. iii, 16) God has given 
only " some to be apostles, some prophets, othe? 
some evangelists, and some pastors and teach- 



308 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

ers" Because its sense is to be sought from 
those who were sent to teach ; from the " lips 
of the Priest who shall keep knowledge, and 
from whose mouth they shall require the law'* 
Mai. ii, 7. 

Q. Do not Catholic Bishops and Popes dis- 
courage the reading of the Scriptures ? 

A. No ; the Catholic clergy are bound to 
read the Scripture for nearly an hour every 
day ; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain 
publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation 
of authentic copies of Scripture was never dis- 
couraged by the Church ; Pope Pius VII., in a 
rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the Eng- 
lish Bishops, tells them "to encourage their 
people to read the Holy Scriptures, because 
nothing can be more useful, more consoling, 
more animating. They serve to confirm the 
faith, to support the hope, and to inflame the 
charity of the true Christian." 

Q. Does not the Catholic Church forbid 
versions of the Scripture into modern tongues, 
for the very purpose of keeping the Scripture 
from the people ? 

A. Even the Rev. Robert Adams refutes 
this Protestant slander ; though a Protestant 
himself, he declares that the Catholic laity are 
not debarred the use of the Scriptures. — Re- 
ligious World Displayed, vol. ii, p. 78. But 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 309 

the best refutation of this calumny is, that Pope 
Pius VI., writing to Martini, Archb. of Florence, 
on the subject of his translation of the Scrip- 
tures, applauds his zeal in publishing his version, 
and exhorts the faithful to read it. This docu- 
ment is dated April 1788, and is prefixed to 
every English edition of the Catholic Bible. 

Q. Is it not said that Catholics published 
few versions of Scripture till they were com- 
petted to do so by Protestant example ? 

A. This is another Protestant slander propa- 
gated to catch the ignorant. Before Protest- 
antism had a being, there were upwards of 
twenty versions of the Scripture into almost all 
the modern languages, as will be evident from 
the subjoined detail. 

EARLY CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 

Fust's, printed at Mentz, Anno 1462 

Bender's, printed at Augsburg, 1467 

Malermi's Italian Bible, 1471 

Four Gospels, Belgic, 1472 

Entire Bible, Belgic, Cologne, 1475 

Julian's, (an Augustinian monk,) 1477 

Delft Edition, 1477 

St. Vincent Ferrier's, Spanish, 1478 

Gouda Edition, 1479 

Guyards des Moulins, French, * 1490 

Four Versions mentioned by Beausobre, (Hist de la 

Reformation, livre iv,) printed before 1522 

Estaple's New Testament, 1523 

Old Testament printed before 1528 



310 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Bruccioli's Italian Bible, 1532 

Antwerp and Louvain, 1578 

EARLY PROTESTANT VERSIONS. 

Luther's Version of New Testament, Anno 1 522 

Tyndale's New Testament, 1526 

First Belgic Version, 1527 

Luther's Old Testament,....., 1530 

Tyndale's Pentateuch, 1530 

Miles Coverdale's Version, 1535 

Olivetan's Old Testament, 1537 

First Italian Version, 1562 

ENGLISH CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 

Version of whole Bible, MS., Anno 1290 

Anglo-Saxon Version, MS. about 1300 

FRENCH, GERMAN, SPANISH, AND ITALIAN MS. VERSIONS. 

German, about 800 ; Italian, 1270 ; Spanish, 1280 ; French, 
1294.* 

* Six versions, and twelve editions, of the Sacred Volume 
appeared in German before -Luther's time. The same is true 
of three versions, and many editions, in Italian. Four ver- 
sions, with a multitude of editions, were published in Gothic 
and French. Two Belgic versions, with several editions. 
The Bohemian version was published, Prague, 1488 ; at 
Putna, 1498 ; at Venice, 1506, and 1511. For other Catho- 
lic translations, in almost all the languages of the world, and 
many of them published in Rome, the very hotbed of po- 
pery, — see Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, Bochmer, Leipsic, 
1709 ; and note appended to Lord Shrewsbury's Letter to 
Lord Bealey, page 90. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 321 



ON MONKS, FRIARS, AND NUNS. 



Q. What is the meaning of religious Or- 
ders ? 

A. The very fact that we have in revelation 
counsels, as well as commands, proves that 
such Orders should exist in the Church as 
should observe these counsels, for Christ did 
not give them in vain. 

Q. What do you mean by counsels ? 

A. Those virtues which Christ has recom- 
mended, but not commanded under pain of 
sin, such as chastity, voluntary poverty, &c. 

Q. Is there not something wrong in becoming 
a Monk or a Nun ? 

A. No ; but if we are to believe the Scrip- 
ture, there is something peculiarly praiseworthy 
in doing so. Christ speaks often of the dan- 
ger of riches ; he tells the young man in the 
Gospel to go and sell all that he had, and give 
it to the poor, if he wished to be perfect. 
Now, this is what Monks and Nuns do ; and 
can there be any thing wrong in following the 
advice of Christ himself, in embracing a life 
of voluntary poverty, instead of exposing one's 
self to the seductive danger of riches ? St. 
Paul declares, that he who giveth his virgin in 
marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not. 



312 A DOCTRINAL CATECHTSM. 



doth better; and can there be any thing wrong 
in following this advice of the Apostle, in vow- 
ing and preserving that brightest of all virtues 
chastity ? Christ declares, that we must de- 
ny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow 
him ; can there then be any thing wrong in 
those, who, finding that they cannot do this 
well in the midst of this world's temptations, 
retire from it into the cloister, and there prac- 
tise the counsels of Christ, in obedience to, and 
under the guidance of, the great masters of a 
religious life, always to be found in every re- 
ligious establishment ? 

Q. Are all religious employed merely in la- 
boring for their own, or praying for the sal- 
vation of others ? 

A. No ; many religious Orders are establish- 
ed entirely for the good of their neighbors, some 
to teach the ignorant, others to preach the 
Gospel, some to provide for the poor, others to 
imbue the minds of the rich youth with know- 
ledge and virtue, some to attend the sick, es- 
pecially in the public hospitals, and others to 
redeem the slave and the captive. 

Q. May there not be abuses in these estab- 
lishments ? 

A. There is nothing so good that it may not 
be abused ; marriage, every profession, the very 
Word of God, nay, our common Christianity, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 313 

are all occasionally abused ; but surely no good 
Christian will think this an argument either 
against them, or to get rid of them. 



ON THE CHARGE OF IGNORANCE MADE 
AGAINST CATHOLICS. 



Q. Did not the Reformation bring the bless- 
ing of learning into the world ? 

A. Protestants attribute to the Reformation, 
what is due solely to the art of printing, dis- 
covered before the introduction of the new re- 
ligion of Luther. 

Q. Did the Catholics use the art of printing 
for the promotion of literature before Protest- 
antism had a being ? 

A. Before the end of the fifteenth century, 
printing presses were wrought in thirty-four 
towns of France alone ; and between the years 
1455 and 1536, twenty -two millions nine hun- 
dred and thirty-two thousand volumes had 
been printed. The Popes, Nicholas V. and 
Sixtus IV., with the Princes and Kings of most 
European countries, were the munificent patrons 
of the arts and sciences, (Recherches sur les 
Bibliotheques, pp. 82, 207, 233, 180.) Learning 
was in such a flourishing state in Germany, 

27 



314 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that ten Universities were founded between 
the years 1403 and 1506. Erasmus declares, 
that " learning triumphed in England, that the 
King, the Queen, two Cardinals, and almost all 
the Bishops, exerted themselves in promoting 
it." (Ad Pet. Bembum ; Basilese, 1518.) In- 
deed, all the Universities in Europe were found- 
ed by Catholics and in Catholic times. During 
three hundred years, Protestants have shown 
their wish to promote learning by the erection 
of only two Universities, those of Dublin and 
London. 

Q. By whom were the Universities of Scot- 
land erected ? 

A. By Bishops and Popes : That of St. An- 
drews, by the Catholic Bishop Wardlaw, under 
the sanction of Benedict XIII., in 1413 ; that 
of Glasgow, by Pope. Nicholas V., aided by 
Bishops Muirhead and Turnbull, in 1450 ; that 
of Aberdeen, called King's College, by Pope 
Alexander VI., to which Bishop Elphinstone 
largely contributed. Even the Edinburgh 
University was projected by a Catholic Bishop, 
(Reid of Orkney,) who left eight thousand 
merks for that purpose. Indeed, every na- 
tion in Europe, by the proudest monuments, 
such as Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, Sor- 
bonne, Salamanca, bears irrefragable testi- 
mony to the untiring exertions of the Cath- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 315 

olic Church for the promotion of the arts and 
sciences. 

Q. Can you illustrate this matter by any 
additional consideration ? 

A. Yes ; is not Europe indebted to Catholic 
Bishops and Popes for its civilization, its laws, 
and all its knowledge of the fine arts ? Are 
not painting, sculpture, music, and architecture, 
all completely and entirely Catholic ? If you 
have any doubt, only look to the magnificent 
abbeys and cathedrals which have survived the 
fury of Vandalic reform, and which the bar- 
barous hand of Protestantism has left only as 
interesting ruins, and you will be quickly con- 
vinced. No wonder, then, that the candid 
Colonel Mitchell, in his Life of Wallenstein, 
should declare, that " deep and indelible is the 
debt which religion and civilization owe to 

THE EARLY RoMAN PONTIFFS AND TO THE 

Church of Rome. They strove long and no- 
bly to forward the cause of human improve- 
ment." 

Q. Did not even the Monasteries possess 
large libraries and men of learning ? 

A. For this we have excellent Protestant 
authority. " The monasteries .... had more 
opportunities for study than the secular clergy 
possessed .... But their most important service 
was as secure repositories for books. All our 



316 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

manuscripts have been preserved in this man- 
ner." (Hallam, Mid. Ages, vol. ii, p. 439.) 
" When the monks were settled in the reign of 
King Edgar, they promoted a general improve- 
ment ; they were very industrious in restoring 
learning, and retrieving the country from the 
remarkable ignorance of these times." (Collier, 
Hist. Ecclesiast.) " A little before the Reform- 
ation, many of the great monasteries were 

NURSERIES OF LEARNING ; the SUPERIORS of 

monasteries were men of distinction." (Ibid.) 
Bishop Tanner says : " The monasteries were 
schools of learning and education." 

Q. What was the order of Pope Gregory 
VII. to the Bishops of the Church ? 

A. He urged all the Bishops in Christendom 
to encourage literature and the arts, and to 
have each a school attached to his Cathedral 
Church. (Voigt, Hist. Greg. VII., French 
Trans., p. 500.) 

Q. What was the opinion of Burke, Gibbon, 
and Lord Hutchinson, as to Catholic learn- 
ing ? 

A. The first declared, that "France alone 
had produced more eminent scholars than all 
the Protestant Universities of Europe ;" the 
second said, that " one Monastery of Benedic- 
tine Monks gave to the world more works of 
learning than both the Universities of Eng- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 317 

land ;" and the third spoke thus to the British 
House of Lords : " Catholicity, which has this 
night been the subject of so much abuse, has 
been the belief of the most extensive and 
enlightened nations of Europe, and of the 
most illustrious characters that ever did honor 
to the name of man." (Cob., Letter i ; Lin- 
gard's Tracts, p. 63.) 

Q. Do not Protestant countries stand much 
higher, in modern times, as to education, com- 
fort, and prosperity, than Catholic countries? 

A. They turn their whole attention to world- 
ly prosperity ; religion gives them little con- 
cern ; and hence it would not be very surpri- 
sing if, in the above branches, they were in 
advance. That such, however, is not the case, 
you have only to read, Howiit's Life in Ger- 
many — Tait, Feb. 1843 ; TurnbulVs Austria, 
vol. i, p. 219; Ibid, vol. ii, pp. 66, 72 — see 
also, p. 59 ; Borrow 's Bible in Spain, chap. v. 
Even Dr. Welsh, in the General Assembly of 
1835, admitted, that Scotland, " instead of be- 
ing the very first in point of education, holds a 
very low place in respect of some Protestant, 
and I must," he says, "add, some Roman 
Catholic Countries." This from a minister 
is a very large admission ; and when taken in 
connection with the declaration of a British 
Secretary of State on the Factory question, 

27* 



318 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

" that Protestant England is the most ignorant 
Christian country in the world/' and with the 
astounding proofs of spiritual and temporal 
ignorance laid before that Factory Commission, 
must be considered as perfectly conclusive. 

Q. What does Mr. Laing — Notes of a Trav- 
eller, pp. 435, 442 — say as to the comparative 
state of education ? 

A. In page 435, after saying that the pover- 
ty-stricken intellectual recluse is the Popish 
priest of the Nineteenth Century, he adds, 
" Our clergy in Scotland have a very erroneous 
notion of the state of the Popish clergy ; • . . . 
we often hear them prayed for, as men wallow- 
ing in luxury, and sunk in gross ignorance. 
This is somewhat injudicious, as well as un- 
charitable ; for when the youth of their con- 
gregations .... come in contact abroad with the 
Catholic clergy, so described, and find them in 
learning, liberal views, and genuine piety, ac- 
cording to their own doctrines, so very different 
from the description, and the describers, there 
will unavoidably arise comparisons. .. .by no 
means edifying or flattering to their clerical 
teachers at home.... Our Churchmen should 
understand better the strength of a formidable 
adversary, .. ..who brings into the field zeal 
and purity of life equal to their own. The 
education of the regular clergy of the Catholic 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 319 

Church, is, perhaps, positively higher, and, be- 
yond doubt, comparatively higher, than the 
education of the Scotch clergy. By positively 
higher, is meant that, among a given number 
of Popish and of Scotch clergy, a greater pro- 
portion of the former will be found, who read 
with ease and a perfect mastery the ancient 
languages — Greek, Latin, and Hebrew — and 
the Eastern languages connected with that of 
the Old Testament, — a greater number of pro- 
found scholars, a greater number of high mathe- 
maticians, and a higher average amount of 
acquired knowledge." In page 442, he adds, 
" The Catholic clergy adroitly seized on edu- 
cation, and not, as we suppose in Protestant 
countries, to keep the people in darkness and 
ignorance, and to inculcate error and super- 
stition, but to be at the head of the great social 
influence of useful knowledge." Again, in page 
439, alluding to the gross calumny, " that the 
Catholic clergy seek to keep their people in ig- 
norance," he scouts the impudent saying in the 
following masterly style : " This opinion of our 
Churchmen seems more orthodox, than charita- 
ble, or correct. The Popish clergy have, in 
reality, less to lose by the progress of education 
than our own Scotch clergy. In Catholic Ger- 
many, in France, Italy, and even Spain, the 
education of the common people, in reading, 



320 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

writing, arithmetic, music, manners, and morals, 
is, at least, as generally diffused, and as faith- 
fully promoted, by the clerical body, as in Scot- 
land. It is by their own advance, and not by 
keeping back the advance of the people, that 
the Popish priests of the present day seek to 
keep a-head of the intellectual progress of the 
community. Education is, in reality, not only 
not repressed, but is encouraged, in the Popish 
Church, and is a mighty instrument in its 
hands, and ably used. In every street in 
Rome, for instance, there are, at short dis- 
tances, public primary schools, for the education 
of the children of the lower and middle classes. 
Rome, with a population of 158,678 souls, has 
372 public primary schools, with 482 teachers, 
and 14,099 children attending them. Has 
Edinburgh so many public schools for the in- 
struction of those classes ? I doubt it. Berlin, 
with a population about double that of Rome, 
has only 264 schools. Rome has also her Uni- 
versity, with an average attendance of 660 stu- 
dents ; and the Papal states, with a population 
of two and a half millions, contain seven uni- 
versities. (Protestant) Prussia, with a popula- 
tion of fourteen millions, has only seven .... 
The statistical fact, that Rome has above a 
hundred schools more than Berlin, for a popu- 
lation little more than half that of Berlin, puts 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 321 

to flight a world of humbug.... Is it asked, 
what is taught to the people of Rome by all 
these schools ? Precisely what is taught at 
Berlin, {the most Protestant capital of the most 
Protestant country in the world) — reading, 
writing, arithmetic, geography, languages, re- 
ligious doctrine of some sort." This ample 
attestation, given by an enemy, when looked at 
along with the extraordinary exertions that are 
made, now that the penal laws are done away 
with in Great Britain and Ireland and other 
countries of Europe, by the Catholics of these 
countries, in establishing schools, educational 
convents, and colleges, should, we think, open 
the eyes of the veriest bigot to this truth, that 
the Catholic Church loves learning, and pro- 
motes the arts and sciences. 



ON THE CHARGE OF UNCHARITABLENESS. 



Q. Are Catholics uncharitable to Sectarians? 

A. Certainly not ; since the Church teaches 
them to love all mankind, to pray for all, to 
forgive all, and to do good corporally and spir- 
itually to all, irrespective of creed, country, or 
color. 



322 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. Does she not teach that there is no salva- 
tion out of the Church ? 

A. We have already proved that there is 
only one true Church, as there is only one 
Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and that the 
Catholic Church is that one true fold. Hence 
it is not only not uncharitable, but very charit- 
able in Catholics to declare to the world what 
is laid down in Scripture, which teaches, that 
sects and heresies and schisms are sins which 
exclude from heaven. St. Paul declares, that 
" they that do such things, shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God."— Gal. v, 20, 2L 

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are ap- 
parently out of their communion with the crimes 
of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude 
them from salvation ? 

A. No ; all baptized children who die before 
they sin mortally, and before they embrace and 
believe error, are members of the true Church. 
Again, all those sincere people belong to the 
soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and 
believing the great fundamental truths of Chris- 
tianity, and who are prevented from believing 
it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor 
temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the 
spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply 
because they never doubted, and never had 
sufficient means of knowing the truth, which 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 323 

they would embrace at once, and with glad- 
ness, could they only discover it, — all these, 
we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and 
will be saved, if they lead good lives and do 
not violate God's law. 

Q. What do you mean by the soul of the 
Church ? 

A. All those belong to the body of the Church 
who are openly professing Catholics ; to the 
soul of the Church belong all such as I have 
above described, who, being baptized, and be- 
lieving the fundamental truths of religion, are 
living separate from the body of the Church, 
not by any fault of their own, but purely by 
not having sufficient means to lead them into a 
knowledge of the whole truth. 

Q. Do Protestants expressly teach the very 
doctrine they unjustly blame in us, " exclusive 
salvation ?" 

A. Yes ; the 16th Article of the Old Pres- 
byterian Confession says : " That there is one 
Kirk, out of which Kirk neither life nor eternal 
felicity is to be hoped for." The 25th chap, 
of the Westminster Confess, declares, " that 
those who profess the true religion, (there can 
be only one religion true,) with their children, 
are the house of God, out of which there is no 
ordinary possibility of salvation" The 18th 
chap, of the Church of England Articles de- 



324 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

clares, " that they also are to be had accursed, 
that presume to say, that every man shall be 
saved by the law or sect which he professeth." 
The same is the doctrine taught in the Prot. 
Belgian Confess., 1561, and by the Synod of 
Dort, 1619. The French Prot. Catechism, 
Edit. 1710, p. 283, says, "Without doubt, out 
of the Church, there is nothing but death and 
damnation." This is extraordinary doctrine 
to come from the lips of men who came out of 
the only Church in the world a few years be- 
fore. 

Q. What do you conclude from all this? 

A. That those pretended lovers of charitable 
doctrine must be very blind who look lor such 
in any Protestant Communion. 



ON HERESY. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. Wliat is heresy ? 

A. An obstinate attachment to one's own 
private opinion, in opposition to what is de- 
clared an article of faith ; and he is guilty of it, 
who prefers his own opinion to the declared 
doctrine of the universal Church ; for example, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 325 

if he hold obstinately any meaning he chooses 
to give to any portion of Scripture, which mean- 
ing is opposed to that given by the Church. 

Q. Have all heretics pretended to prove their 
peculiar doctrines from Scripture? 

A. All, without exception. The Arians de- 
nied the consubstantiality of the Word, depend- 
ing on that passage of St. John, chap, xiv — 
" My Father is greater than I" The Mace- 
donians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, 
on these words — Rom. viii, 26 — " The Spirit 
himself asketh for us with unspeakable groan- 
ings" The Manicheans pretended to prove, 
that Christ became man only in appearance, by 
Philip, ii, 7 — " Taking the form of a servant, 
being made in the likeness of men." The Nes- 
torians fancied they proved, that in Christ there 
were two persons, by Coloss. ii, 9 — " For in 
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
corporally" The Eutychians cited John, chap, 
i, — " and the Word was made flesh," — to prove, 
that Christ had only one nature ; and the Pe- 
lagians founded their denial of original sin, on 
Ezech. xviii, 20 — " The son shall not bear the 
iniquity of the father" 

Q. What was the source of all these er- 
rors ? 

A. The presumptuous desire and determina- 
tion of each Heresiarch to prefer his own in- 

28 



326 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

terpretation of the Scripture, to that given by 
the whole Church. 

Q. Were Luther and Calvin guilty of a 
similar irrational presumption ? 

A. They were shipwrecked on the same rock 
which had caused the ruin of all the Heresi- 
archs that had gone before them. Calvin, for 
example, gave these words — " this is my body" 
— a figurative meaning, whilst the whole Church 
then existing, and the whole Christian world 
during fifteen hundred years, understood them 
in their natural sense. Luther explained these 
words — Rom. iii — "Man is justified by faith 
without the works of the law" — as dispensing 
with the necessity of good works, and the ob- 
serving of God's commandments, whilst the 
whole Church understood these words to mean, 
that man is justified neither by the works of the 
natural nor of the Jewish law, but by faith in 
Jesus Christ, and by the works which proceed 
from that faith, having the grace of God for 
their source. 

Q. Did Luther and Calvin act uniformly on 
this irrational principle of preferring each his 
own single individual judgment to that of the 
whole Church ? 

A. Yes ; such was the principle upon which 
they grounded each article of their new faith. 

Q. Can Luther, or any of his followers, be 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 327 

excusable before God, seeing that each one of 
them prefers, in the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, his own one light, and his own one judg- 
ment, to the light and judgment of the whole 
Church ? 

A. Certainly not ; for to such individual we 
say : Either you believe that you are fallible in 
the interpretation which you give the Scripture, 
or you hold that you are infallible : if you say 
you are fallible, then your faith is uncertain 
and vacillating, and, consequently, is not faith 
at all ; but if you say you are infallible, then 
your absurd presumption drives you to assert, 
that the whole Church may err in her inter- 
pretation of Scripture, but that you individually 
can interpret it with infallible certainty ! ! 

Q. What can he reply to this dilemma ? 

A. We defy him to make any satisfactory 
reply ; he being either the victim of perplexity, 
or the dupe of the most insupportable obstinacy. 



CHAPTER II. 

Q. Have you observed any peculiarities which 
have uniformly accompanied every important 
heresy that has made its appearance in the 
Christian world ? 

A. Yes ; five peculiarities are always ob- 
servable. 1st, Every Heresiarch presumed to 



328 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

blame the Church with having fallen into perni- 
cious error ; 2dly, These Heresiarchs, with their 
adherents, always separated themselves from 
the Church ; 3dly, They uniformly taught new 
doctrines, unknown till then in the Christian 
world ; 4thly, They always gave their own 
name, or the name of their country, or the 
name of their new dogmas, to their followers ; 
5thl y, Not one of them could ever prove that 
he had a lawful mission. 

Q. Have you observed the same traits in the 
Heresiarchs Luther and Calvin ? 

A. Yes ; like Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, 
and Eutyches, they blamed the Church, — they 
separated themselves from her, — they taught 
new doctrines, — they gave their names to their 
followers, — and they were unable to prove a 
lawful mission. 

Q. How do you prove that Luther, for ex- 
ample, taught new dogmas ? 

A. We defy him or any of his followers to 
name even one country, one parish, or even 
one village, which, from the time of Christ until 
Luther appeared, ever taught, that there are 
only two sacraments, — that the Mass is an 
abomination, — the invocation of saints, idolatry, 
—Purgatory, a superstition, — and the Pope, 
Antichrist. 

Q. Have you remained any other peculiarity 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 329 

as often as any new doctrine appeared in the 
Church ? 

A. We can always name the author of such 
new creed, — tell the place and time where it 
made its first appearance, — give the names of 
the first men who opposed it, — and point out 
the Council which condemned it. Thus, w r e 
know that Arius, in the year 315, in Alexan- 
dria, a city of Egypt, was the first to teach, 
that Christ Jesus was not equal to the Father ; 
and we know, that this error was combated by 
the Patriarch Alexander and by St. Atha- 
nasius, and that it was condemned by the 
first Council of Nice. 

Q. Do we observe the same peculiarities, as 
to the new doctrine of Luther ? 

A. Exactly the same. That doctrine made 
its first appearance at Wittemberg, in Saxony, 
in the year 1517 ; it had Luther for its au- 
thor ; Was COMBATED BY ALL THE UNIVERSITIES 

to which he appealed ; and was finally con- 
demned by the Council of Trent. 

Q. What other marks of novelty do you dis- 
cover in Luther s doctrine ? 

A. Three other marks. That doctrine was 
at first embraced by very few; all those who 
embraced it, had been previously taught a very 
different doctrine ; and its appearance gave rise 
to great confusion, amazement, and sedition. 

28* 



330 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. May it not be said, that Luther taught 
nothing new, but merely re-established what the 
Apostles taught ? 

A. This reply is justly suspected, because it 
was the reply of every Heresiarch that appear- 
ed in the world. 

Q. How do you refute this assertion ? 

A. The doctrine of the Apostles could never 
cease to be taught, because Christ declared he 
would be with his Apostles teaching all days, 
even to the consummation of the world; but 
the doctrine of Luther was not only not taught, 
it was not even known before his own time ; 
therefore, the doctrine of Luther was not the 
doctrine of the Apostles. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. Were Luther and Calvin better able to 
prove their mission, than were Arius, Mace- 
donius, or Nestorius ? 

A. No ; in this they had the very same diffi- 
culty to contend with as had these Heresiarchs. 

Q. How did the Catholics prove to the re- 
forming leaders that they had no mission ? 

A. They said to them : Your ecclesiastical 
superiors have not sent you to preach or bap- 
tize ; therefore you have no ordinary mission : 
but neither have you an extraordinary mission ; 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 331 

for, if you were sent immediately and directly 
by God himself, you would have been able to 
prove this, like Moses or our Saviour, by work- 
ing miracles. 

Q. Did Luther himself admit, that no man 
could preach unless he had, one or other of these 
missions ? 

A. Yes ; addressing the Anabaptist preach- 
ers, he says : " If you are sent by man, show 
us your patent ; if by God, let us see you work- 
ing miracles." (German Edit., T. 5, p. 491-6.) 
He forgot, however, this embarrassing dilemma, 
w r hen the Catholics, with much more justice, 
applied it to himself. 

Q. Could not Luther, who was a priest of 
the Catholic Church, reply, that he had power 
and commission from her to preach the true 
doctrine contained in the Scripture ? 

A. Either the Catholic Church was at that 
time the true Church, or she had ceased to be 
such ; if she was then the true Church, it 
was unlawful for Luther to separate from her, 
and she could not give him a commission to 
preach a doctrine contrary to her own ; but if 
she had ceased to be the true Church, then 
she was not qualified to give any commission 
at all. 

Q. As then Luther and Calvin had evident- 
ly no mission, either ordinary or extraordinary, 



332 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

in what light are we to regard them and their 
successors in the ministry ? 

A. As wolves in sheep's clothing, who have 
entered the fold, not by the door, but over the 
wall ; of whom Christ says, that they come not 
to feed, but to devour the sheep. 



THE PROTESTANT "RULE OF FAITH" 
EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER I. 

Q. You have said much already on the rule 
of faith ; still, as it is a very important ques- 
tion, I should like a more full exposition of the 
three false rules generally followed by Protest- 
ants, and then a brief, but clear statement of the 
Scriptural grounds upon which the Catholic 
rule of faith rests. 

A. You shall be gratified, as far as our brief 
space will allow. 

Q. What say you then to the rule of the So- 
cinian ? He admits that the Scripture is in- 
spired, but that reason is to be the interpreter 
of that Divine revelation, and that nothing is 
to be admitted, but what reason can clearly com- 
prehend. 

A. We reply, in the first place, God is infinite, 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 333 

we are finite ; hence, he can reveal many things 
of which we understand nothing except the 
facts revealed, — such are, for example, the Unity 
and Trinity of God, the Creation, the Incarna- 
tion, &c. Now, can reason be our guide in 
things which it cannot comprehend ? Will 
presumptuous, finite reason pretend to fathom 
the unfathomable abyss of God's infinite wis- 
dom and power ? Will it blasphemously tell 
God, that it will believe nothing but what it 
can understand, — that it will believe nothing 
on God's word, unless he condescend to explain 
its nature ? Secondly, reason is fallible ; hence 
it cannot be the foundation of faith, which ex- 
cludes all doubt ; it can only be the foundation 
of opinion. Only open the pages which con- 
tain the sad history of man ; look at the molten 
idols of ancient Rome, and the garden gods of 
ancient Egypt, — at the contradictions and ab- 
surdities of Pagan and Christian schools, guided 
entirely by human reason, and you will be 
satisfied, that there is nothing ridiculous, gross, 
absurd, or shameful, which erring reason has 
not taught ; and if so, surely it cannot be a 
secure rule of faith. Thirdly, all the sects in 
the world professing Christianity, agree in de- 
nouncing the Socinian or Unitarian rule, and 
their creed founded on that rule. Most cer- 
tainly, therefore, it is safer to follow the over- 



334 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

whelming majority of Christians, than to risk 
our salvation upon a rule lately adopted by a 
handful of men, who have no claim to the title 
of Christian, since they deny one of the funda- 
mental articles of Christianity — the Divinity of 
Christ. 

Q. Have you any other argument against 
this rule ? 

A, Yes, many. The reasons or judgments 
of men are as different as their faces ; hence, 
an infinite variety of religions would be formed 
under the direction of reason. Look at our 
contradictory systems of medicine, philosophy, 
politics, and agriculture, and say : If such is 
the case in secular sciences, should we not 
have the same Babylonish confusion as regards 
religion, if reason were admitted as supreme 
judge ? Should we not, in that case, have as 
many creeds as there are men, — as many va- 
rieties in religion, as there are different grades 
of strong or weak, polished or unpolished, rea- 
son amongst men ? In fine, the very rule of the 
Socinian is a contradiction to his reason. The 
Christian rule is much more rational. God 
reveals certain truths, many of which are mys- 
teries. The Socinian says : What I understand 
of these, I will believe ; what my reason does 
not comprehend, I will reject ; and thus an in- 
solent creature, who is the mere work of God's 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 335 

hand, — who does not understand even himself, 
— who cannot comprehend half the mysteries, 
which exist in and around him every moment, 
dares to disbelieve God's word, unless God 
condescend to explain all to him. How irra- 
tional is such conduct ! The Christian, on the 
contrary, when a mystery is proposed, seeks 
sufficient proof of the fact of revelation ; — 
satisfied on this head, he believes at once. 
God is infinitely good, he says, therefore he 
cannot deceive me ; he is infinitely wise, there- 
fore he cannot be deceived himself; whatever 
he reveals must be true ; therefore I believe it, 
whether I understand it or not. We may then 
sound as we please the depths of worldly 
science ; in this we are confined to no bounds ; 
but in religion we have prescribed limits. It 
is & positive institution — " Thus far shalt thou 
go, and no further/' t 

CHAPTER II. 

Q. What say you to the rule adopted by the 
Baptists, Quakers, Moravians, and Methodists, 
which consists in a supposed private inspira- 
tion made by God to each individual ? 

A. The conduct of those who adopted this 
delusion is its best refutation. Montanus and 
Maximilla were the first who adopted it, and 



336 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

they both hanged themselves, (Euseb. Eccl. 
Hist., Lib. v.) The followers of Carlostad 
were privately inspired by God, " to despoil 
and kill all the wicked." (Sleidan, De Statu 
Rel. et Reip. Comment., Lib. iii, p. 45.) John 
Bockhold, following his inspiration, declared 
himself king of Sion — he married eleven wives, 
and, by order of his spirit, put them all to death. 
(Hist de la Reform, par Ger. Brandt.) Her- 
man was inspired to declare himself the Mes- 
siah, — to order that all priests and magistrates 
should be killed. (Brandt, p. 5 1 .) David George 
declared himself the true son of God. (Mo- 
sheim, V. iv, p. 484.) Such were the foreign 
Protestants who followed private inspiration as 
a rule of faith. 

Q. Were the English followers of this rule 
more moderate than their continental brethren ? 

A. No ; Nicholas taught, that faith and 
worship were useless, — that men should con- 
tinue in sin, that grace might abound. (Brandt, 
p. 51.) For the doings of Hacket's and Ven- 
ner's private inspiration, see Fuller's Hist, of 
the Church, p. 9, and Echard's Hist, of Eng. 
Fox, according to Penn's Journal, declared the 
Scripture only a secondary rule, subject to the 
spirit ; and one of his party entered the Par- 
liament House with a drawn sword, saying, he 
was authorized by the Holy Spirit to kill every 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 337 

man that sat in that house. (Maclaine's Note 
on Mosheim, V. v, p. 470.) James Naylor was 
inspired to have himself hailed as the " Prince 
of peace, the rose of Sharon, and the fairest of 
ten thousand." (Echard.) Wesley says of the 
Moravians, that many of them did not read 
the Scriptures, pray, or communicate, because 
that was seeking salvation by works. " Some 
of our English brethren say," he adds, " you 
will never have faith, till you leave off the 
Church and the sacraments ; as many go to 
hell by praying as by thieving." (Journal, 
1740.) Such were the impious and blas- 
phemous fruits of the rule called " private in- 
spiration." 

Q. These unquestionable facts are shocking 
evidences against that rule, — have you any 
additional argument to offer ? 

A. In the first place, the true rule of faith 
is a rule for all, whilst, with the exception 
of these few deluded Protestant fanatics, no 
body of Christians ever felt, or even pretended 
to feel, that they were privately inspired by 
God ; therefore, the great mass of Christians 
have ever been, and now are, without any rule 
of faith ; and is this at all reconcileable with 
God's goodness and mercy ? Secondly, Those 
who adopted this rule directly contradicted the 
Scripture. Their spirit told them to murder ; 

29 






338 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

— the Scripture says — " Thou shalt not kill/' 
The spirit told them to sin that grace might 
abound ; — the Scripture forbids all sin. Nay, 
they contradicted one another. The same Spirit 
of God taught one thing to Wesley, and another 
to Bockhold, — one to Joanna Southcote, and 
another to Fox. Finally, the Spirit of God, 
say these fanatics, teaches us what we are to 
believe and what we are to do ; but can they 
prove that it, in reality, is the Spirit of God, 
and not the spirit of error ? (for from their 
Works, hinted at above, it would appear that 
the latter is their guide.) No, they cannot ; 
for, in order to do so, they should work some 
unquestionable miracle ; but in this they have 
never succeeded. What wise man, therefore, 
would be weak enough to abandon the Scrip- 
ture, constant tradition, and Church authority, 
and deliver his soul to the guidance of such 
self-sent, foolish, and wicked pretenders to in- 
spiration ? They are guided by a spirit, but it 
is evidently the spirit of fanaticism, darkness, 
and error. 

CHAPTER III. 

Q. What is the third false rule of faith ? 

A. That of the respectable portion of Prot- 
estants, who maintain, that the Bible, and the 
Bible only, and the Bible, not as it sounds, or 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 339 

as it is understood by the learned, but as it is 
understood by each private individual, whether 
ignorant or learned, is the rule of faith, given 
by a wise and good God to mankind. 

Q. Have you many arguments against this 
pretended rule ? 

A. Yes, very many. The first of which is 
derived from a comparison of this Protestant 
with the Catholic rule of faith. 

Q. What is the Catholic rule of faith ? 

A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly 
divine tradition, (see Chap, on Tradition,) in- 
terpreted, not by the ignorant, nor even the 
learned laity, but by the lawfully sent and or- 
dained pastors of God's true Church. 

Q. In comparing these rules, why do you 
give a preference to the Catholic rule ? 

A. Even at this moment, there are seven 
Catholics for one Protestant in the world; 
hence, we have seven to one in favor of our 
interpretation of Scripture, and in favor of our 
rule ; we have, in addition to this, the whole 
world during fifteen hundred years before Lu- 
ther ; and all this is confirmed by the fact, that 
whilst all Catholics, of every age and country, 
agree as to the rule of faith and its interpreta- 
tion, no two sects of Protestants are agreed 
upon every question of religion ; nor do they 
give their rule of faith one and the same inter- 



340 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

pretation,— -each individual Protestant explains 
the Scripture for himself, whilst each Catholic 
has the Scripture explained by all that is at 
present — or ever was — wise, learned, great, or 
good, in God's Church. The Protestant has 
only the security of his own one judgment ; — 
the Catholic has that of the whole Church. 

Q. Is there any thing absurd in this trait of 
Protestantism ? ■ 

A. Can any thing be more absurd, than that 
an ignorant peasant should pretend to interpret 
the Inspired Volume better than all the pastors 
of the Church ? 

Q. Would it be less absurd^ if only learned 
Protestants pretended to do so ? 

A. Very little indeed ; since they can be 
only considered a handful, when compared with 
the learned body of the Catholic Church : if, as 
the Scripture says, " There be wisdom among 
many counsellors" truth will be on the side of 
Catholicism : we have the learning of eighteen 
centuries, — Protestants have only that of three. 

Q. What is your next argument 1 

A, During three hundred years, the Bible, as 
privately interpreted, has been the rule of Prot- 
estants ; now, if it had been the rule intended 
by God, all Protestants would have been of one 
faith, — they would have given the same inter- 
pretation to every passage. But the reverse is 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 341 

the case. Luther taught the real presence out 
of the Bible ; — Zuinglius, out of the same book, 
taught the contrary ; — the Church of England 
teaches one doctrine, the Kirk of Scotland an- 
other, the Evangelical Church of Prussia a third, 
and yet all follow the Bible and interpret for 
themselves. They have proved the Bible, as 
privately interpreted, to be the fruitful source 
of delusions, heresies, and schisms. 

Q. Is it not clear, that there can be only one 
true faith, as there is only one Lord, one bap- 
tism, one revelation, which can have only one 
true sense ? 

A. Yes, beyond all doubt ; and the Protest- 
ant rule destroys this unity of faith. Let each 
man interpret the Bible for himself, and you 
will have, as is evident from our swarms of 
Protestant sects, as many religions as there are 
different heads and judgments. 

Q. May not the ministers restrain these 
sects by forcing all to accept their interpreta- 
tion ? 

A. No ; for this would be in contradiction to 
their own principles ; it would be destroying 
the right of private interpretation. 

Q. Does not the Protestant rule facilitate 
the teaching of all sorts of error, and this with- 
out the possibility of applying an antidote 1 

A. Yes, clearly. For example, an ignorant 
29* 



342 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Unitarian cobbler denies the divinity of Christ, 
on these words — " The Father is greater than 
I." It will be of no use for a Protestant min- 
ister to quote against him that other passage — 
" I and the Father are one ;" for the cobbler 
will reply, that their unity is a unity of affection, 
not of nature, and this he will say is evident 
from the former passage. The minister must 
leave him in his error ; for the cobbler will tell 
him he has a right to interpret Scripture for 
himself, and that he is as good a judge as any 
minister. 

Q. If the Bible be the only rule of faith, 
should not Protestants be able to tell us, with 
certainty, of what and how many books the 
Bible is composed ? 

A. Certainly; yet this they cannot do. They 
have never agreed amongst themselves on this 
head ; — they reject nine or ten books which we 
admit. St. Paul to the Hebrews, St. James, 
the second of St. Peter, the third of St. John, 
St. Jude, and the Apocalypse, have been all 
successively admitted and rejected by Protest- 
ants. Their opinions, so often changed, show 
they have no certainty as to what books really 
constitute the Bible ; and, consequently, the 
Bible can never be for them a certain rule of 
faith. 

Q. What say you as to the books of Scrip- 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 343 

tare which are lost, alluded to in Num. xxi, 
14; 1 Kings iv/32; Chron. ix, 29; 1 Cor. i, 
9 ; Matth. xxvii, 9 ; Matth. ii, 23 ? 

A. If the Bible be the only rule, it is either 
the whole Bible, including the books that are 
lost, or it is that portion of the Bible which we 
still have ; if the former, then the rule is incom- 
plete ; if the latter, then let Protestants give us 
one text, declaring what we have to be suf- 
ficient as a rule, and clearly indicating the non- 
necessity of what is lost. 

Q. Can you draw any argument against 
the Reformed rule, from the circumstance, that 
Christ appointed a body of pastors to teach 
and preach in his Church? 

A. Yes ; the Reformed rule makes these 
pastors an unnecessary lumber ; for either these 
pastors and their people agree in their inter- 
pretation of Scripture, or they differ ; if they 
agree, then give the people Bibles — the pastors 
are useless — the people can teach themselves ; 
if they differ, then which is right — the pastor or 
the people ? Where is the certainty ? If the 
pastor compel the people to follow his inter- 
pretation, then their rule is destroyed ; if he 
cannot do this, then again he is useless ; and if 
they give up their own opinion and follow his, 
then they are trusting their salvation to one 
fallible man, who gives them, not the infallible 



344 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Word of God, but his fallible interpretation of 
that infallible Word. 

Q. If Christ intended the Bible to be man's 
only guide, should we not suppose that he would 
have written it, or ordered it to be written ? 

A. Certainly ; and yet he never did so ; he 
never commanded his Apostles to write Bibles, 
but to preach the Gospel. 

Q. What may we ask Protestants in addi- 
tion ? 

A. Why did not the Apostles, who knew 
well the true rule of faith, write millions of 
Bibles, and send them to all the ends of the 
earth, with a command to all to learn to read 
them ? Why did they not establish schools, 
that al! might be taught to read ? Why did 
only a few, even of the Apostles, write their 
doctrines ? Why did they allow nearly one 
hundred years to pass before the last book of 
Scripture was written ; and what rule did the 
Christians of that century follow, since the 
Scripture was incomplete ? Was not the world 
converted by the preaching of the Apostles 
and other pastors, and not by Bibles ? Why 
did not the Apostles even translate the Scrip- 
tures into the vulgar tongues of the nations 
they converted ? Why did not St. Peter and 
St. Paul, who lived at Rome, translate into the 
Roman tongue even their own Epistles ? Why 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 345 

did St. Paul write to the Romans in Greek — a 
language understood only by the learned ? 

Q. Does it appear from undoubted facts, that 
God could never have intended the Bible to be 
our only rule of faith ? 

A. We have seen that this was impossible 
during the first century, for the Bible was not 
completed. During the first four hundred years 
it was equally impossible ; few copies, and these 
few written with the pen, existed. Some books 
of Scripture were lying at one Church, and 
some at another ; and during these four hun- 
dred years they were translated into only one 
language ; yet, during these four hundred years, 
whilst the Bible, as a rule of faith, was a physi-. 
cal impossibility, the whole world was converted: 
Nay, until the art of printing was discovered, 
the Bible could not be the rule of faith ; and 
thus Protestants must maintain, that the whole 
world was without any rule of faith during the 
first fourteen hundred years of Christianity. 
During that time few could read, and even if 
they were able, they could not get a copy of 
the Scripture, which cost immense sums. Even 
at present there is not one Bible in existence 
for every ten souls ; and what rule are those to 
follow who cannot read ? Thus, even during 
the first century, the Bible was not the only 
rule of faith, and much less was it the rule 



346 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

during the first four, nay, during the first four- 
teen hundred years. 

Q. If the Bible, as privately interpreted, 
were our only tribunal of appeal, would not 
God have acted like an unwise legislator who 
would make every man his own judge in mat- 
ters of law ? 

A. Yes ; and is not this consideration alone 
sufficient to convince every reflecting person 
of the futility of the Protestant rule ? What 
sort of law would we have, if every man were 
his own advocate as well as judge ? If a wise 
legislator considers the judge of the law as im- 
portant to the welfare of the community as the 
law itself, what are we to think of Protestants, 
who would make God give us a divine code of 
laws, without supplying us with divinely ap- 
pointed interpreters and judges of these laws ? 
Such a principle contains in itself endless di- 
visions and schisms. Luther's religion, which 
was one in him, became, by the adoption of 
this principle, the seed of an infinity of creeds, 
— so much so, that scarcely two Protestants 
have the same faith on every point. 

Q. What does Capito, Protestant minister 
of Strasburg, admit in this matter ? 

A. " Our people now tell us," says he, " I 
know enough of the Gospel — I can read it for 
myself — I have no need of you." (Inter. Epist. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 347 

Calv.) Dudith says to Beza, " Our people are 
carried away with every wind of doctrine ; if 
you know what their religion is to-day, you 
cannot tell what it will be to-morrow. In what 
single point are those who war against the 
Pope agreed amongst themselves ?" " It is of 
great importance," says Calvin to Melanchthon, 
" that the divisions which subsist among us, 
should not be known to future ages." 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Are there not many essential truths, the 
knowledge of which is necessary to salvation, 
which are not clearly laid down in Scripture ? 

A. Yes, many ; such as, who are the true 
pastors of God's Church, — who the wolves in 
sheep's clothing, — which of all the sects is the 
Church of Christ, — what her authority, — should 
she have a head upon earth, — who is to preside 
in her councils, — how is a disputed question to 
be settled, — what should be precisely her pub- 
lic service ? It is, beyond doubt, necessary to 
know, what and how many books are God's 
Word. Now, the Scripture does not clearly 
teach us any one of all these necessary truths ; 
therefore it cannot be of itself our only rule of 
faith. 

Q. Even if the Scripture told us what and 



348 A DOCTRINAL CATECIHSM. 

how many were the true, all-necessary, and 
original books of Scripture, would that be suffi- 
cient ? 

A. No; to be a certain rule of faith, it should 
also inform us, with the utmost certainty, what 
are the true and uncorrupted copies of the true 
and original Scripture. The last of the Scrip- 
tures were written nearly two thousand years 
ago ; we know that the last chapter was added 
to Deuteronomy after the death of Moses, and 
that other changes have taken place since that 
time. What text, then, tells us that these 
changes were made by inspired men, and not 
by impostors ? Without certainty on this head, 
the Bible cannot be a secure rule of faith. 

Q. Wliat do you draw from the fact, that 
the Jews were, for generations, icithout the 
Bible as a rule of faith in their own tongue ? 

A. A most important inference, — viz., that 
the people of God were all that time without 
that which Protestants maintain to be the only 
rule of faith. That people lost the use of the 
Hebrew language in the Babylonish captivity ; 
during fourteen generations after, they spoke 
Syriac ; and the Protestants •themselves admit, 
that there was no Syriac version of Scripture 
before the time of Christ, (Raycroft's Ed. of 
Bible, London, 1655.) 

Q. Can Protestants be certain that the Jew~ 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 349 

ish Rabbins did not corrupt the original Scrip- 
ture ? 

A. No ; this is another question the Bible 
cannot answer. If these ignorant and malicious 
men, who hated Christianity, and in that hatred, 
had a sufficient motive for corrupting Chris- 
tianity in its source, when they inserted, after 
the time of Christ, points to indicate where 
there should be a vowel, inserted maliciously a 
wrong point, may they not thus have perverted 
verses and chapters, nay, whole books of Scrip- 
ture ; and what Protestant can be now certain 
that they did not do so ? 

Q. But even supposing all the originals 
which exist to be perfect, how can Protestants 
know that their translations from these origi- 
nals are faithful? 

A. Here is another necessary truth which 
the Bible cannot teach. Translation from dead 
languages is at all times difficult ; — the original 
idiom of the Bible has not been in use for up- 
wards of two thousand years ; — the translators 
are mere men, and, of course, fallible. Zuing- 
lius says, Luther was a foul corruptor of God's 
Word — Luther retorts the compliment upon 
Zuinglius ; — Beza condemns the translation of 
(Ecolampadius, and Castalio condemns that of 
Beza ; — the Protestant Bishop Tunstal counted 
two thousand errors in the first English trans- 

30 



350 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

lation ; — and Dr. Broughton says, the English 
Bible is so corrupt as to send thousands into 
eternal flames. The very translators them- 
selves confess, that they are not certain that 
they have given the true Word of God in every 
passage, but merely what they supposed to be 
the best readings. Such is the Protestant rule 
— such the thing to which they trust their im- 
mortal souls ! 

Q. If the Scripture be the only rule of faith, 
must it not be a matter of the last importance 
to know what is the true sense of that Sacred 
Volume ? 

A. Certainly ; and yet the Scripture cannot 
tell us this ; nay, St. Peter (2 Pet. iii, 16) tells 
us, that parts of Scripture " are hard to be un- 
derstood, which the unlearned and unstable 
wrest, as also the rest of the Scripture, to 
their own perdition." Nay, the Scripture can- 
not even prove that itself is the Word of God, 
and this Protestants admit. (Chillingworth, p. 
69, No. 49 ; and Hooker Eccl. Polem., Lib. i, 
S. 14, p. 86.) Dr. Covel (Defence, Art. iv, 
p. 31) declares, "It is not the Word of God, 
which does, or can assure us that we do well 
to think it the Word of God" The Bible then 
cannot tell us these two most important of all 
truths — that itself is the true Word of God, and 
what is its true and genuine sense. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 351 

Q. Do you observe other necessary truths 
not clearly laid down in Scripture ? 

A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine 
the knowledge of which is certainly necessary 
to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid 
down in Scripture. 

Q. What say you of infant baptism ? 

A. One-third part of the whole human race 
die before they reach their seventh year : it is 
then a matter of the last importance to know 
whether infants should be baptized ; for the 
Scripture declares, that baptism is necessary to 
salvation ; and yet the Scripture does nowhere 
tell us clearly whether Christ intended infants 
to be baptized. If it did, why should we have 
Baptists, who have never been able to see this 
truth clearly laid down in Scripture ? Here, 
then, we have a truth, upon which the salva- 
tion of one-third part of the whole human race 
depends, which is not to be found in Scripture. 

Q. Did not the Church, at the time of Christ, 
and before that period, keep the day of rest 
from five o'clock on Saturday till five on Sun- 
day? 

A. Yes ; and yet Protestants keep it from 
twelve to twelve without any warrant of Scrip- 
ture. Nay, they oppose the Scripture — Levit. 
xxiii, 32 — " From even unto even shall you 
celebrate your Sabbath/' 



352 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Q. When Protestants do profane work upon 
Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do 
they follow the Scripture as their only rule of 
faith, — do they find this permission clearly 
laid down in the Sacred Volume ? 

A. On the contrary, they have only the au- 
thority of tradition for this practice. In pro- 
faning Saturday, they violate one of God's 
commandments, which he has never clearly 
abrogated, — " Remember thou keep holy the 
Sabbath day/' 

Q. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day 
of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scrip- 
ture ? 

A. It certainly is not ; and yet all Protest- 
ants consider the observance of this particular 
day as essentially necessary to salvation. To 
say, we observe the Sunday, because Christ 
rose from the dead on that day, is to say we 
act without warrant of Scripture ; and we 
might as well say, that we should rest on 
Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven 
on that day, and rested in reality from the work 
of redemption. 

Q. Is it not said, in the Book of Revelations, 
that St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's 
day, that is, Sunday ; and is not this Scrip* 
tural proof that Sunday is the day to be ob- 
served in the New Law ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 353 

A. Are we then to observe this particular 
day, merely because St. John had a revelation 
upon it, — must we observe, as a day of rest and 
holiness, any day upon which an Apostle was 
in the Spirit ? 

Q. But it is called the Lord's day ? 

A. And is not every day the Lord's day, — 
does this text tell you not to work upon that 
day, — does it tell you that the obligation of 
keeping Saturday is done away with, or that it 
was not the day of the Resurrection or Ascen- 
sion which St. John here calls the Lord's day ? 

Q. Is it not said in the Acts — " And upon 
the first day of the week, when the disciples 
came together to break bread, Paul preached 
unto them, ready to depart on the morrow," 
and is not this sufficient Scriptural authority 
for the observance of the first day of the week? 

A. But does this text abrogate the observance 
of Saturday the seventh day, or allow Protest- 
ants to do profane work on that day ? Certainly 
not. They should then rest upon both days, if 
they hold the above text as any argument. The 
text in question does not say that the Apostle 
preached, or that the people assembled every 
first day of the week, but merely on this par- 
ticular day, for which a good reason is given, 
namely, that St. Paul was to depart next day. 
It is quite clear, however, that they met every 

30* 



354 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Saturday ; for the same Acts say, St. Paul 
preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and 
exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. Besides, it 
is not wonderful that the disciples came to- 
gether on this first day of the week, since, ac- 
cording to Acts ii, they continued daily in the 
Temple breaking bread. 

Q. Does not St. Paul order the Galatians 
and Corinthians to make collections on the 
first day of the week ? 

A. Yes ; but, again, this does not abolish the 
observance of Saturday. St. Paul does not 
say that the people would be at church on that 
day, — that they were to keep that day, to the 
exclusion of Saturday, holy, — or that these col- 
lections were to be made at church, but merely 
that every man should lay up by himself in 
store upon that day. 

Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 

A. That Protestants have no Scripture for 
the measure of their day of rest, — that they 
abolish the observance of Saturday without 
warrant of Scripture, — that they substitute 
Sunday in its place without Scriptural authori- 
ty, — consequently, that for all this, they have 
only traditional authority. Yet Protestants 
would look upon a man who would do profane 
work after five o'clock on Sunday, or keep the 
Saturday and profane the first day, as a victim 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 355 

of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that 
the Scripture, which does not teach these things 
clearly, does not contain all necessary truths, 
and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of 
faith. 

Q. Does it not appear from all this, that 
Protestants teach, in many things, what is op- 
posed to Scripture, and that the Catholic doc- 
trines are much more Scriptural? 

A. This is very evident from all we have 
said, and must be considered indisputable, if we 
study carefully what has been said in page 88, 
and the following. 

CHAPTER V. 

Q. Does it appear from Scripture, that the 
written word was ever, either under the Old or 
the New Law, considered as the only rule of 
faith ? 

A. Until the time of Moses there was no 
written revelation ; yet Seth, Abraham, Isaac, 
Melchizedeck, and all God's people, were saved 
by the belief of truths for which they could 
have no authority but tradition. 

Q. What says Moses as to the Book of the 
Law which he wrote, and which was the first 
written revelation the world was favored with ? 

A. He orders the Levites to deposite it " in 



356 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 



the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord ;*' 
adding, " after seven years, in the year of re- 
mission, .... thou shalt read the words of this 
law before all Israel in their hearing." (Deut. 
xxxi, 24, et seq) Was this a giving of the 
written word to the people as their only rule ? 
The Levites are ordered to read it to the peo- 
ple, and this only once in the seven years. 

Q. What do we find in Deut., chap, xvii, 8, 
9, et seq. ? 

A. God commands his people, whenever they 
find among them a hard and doubtful matter in 
judgment, " to come to the priests of the Le- 
vitical race, and to the judge that shall be at 
that time, (the High Priest,) and thou shalt ask 
of them/' says the Lord, " and they shall show 
thee the truth of the judgment ; and thou shalt 
do whatsoever they shall say .... and what they 
shall teach thee ; and he that will be proud, and 
refuse to obey the commandment of the priest 
who ministereth at that time, .... that man 
shall die/ 5 Moses had written out the law by 
this time ; yet he, the inspired oracle of heaven, 
does not put that written word into the hands 
of the people, that by it they might decide their 
disputes ; on the contrary, he orders them, un- 
der pain of death, to have recourse to the 
priests of the Church, and especially to the 
High Priest. See 2 Paralip. (2 Chron. xix) 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 357 

and Malachias ii, 7, where it is said, " The lips 
of the priest shall keep knowledge, and the peo- 
ple shall seek the law at his mouth." 

Q. Is not the New Testament equally clear 
on this head? 

A. Certainly ; for Christ never wrote any- 
thing, and never commanded his Apostles to 
write. In Heb. i, 2, it is said, " In these days 
(God) hath spoken" (not written) " to us, by his 
Son." In Matth. xxviii, 18, Christ does not say 
to his Apostles, Go, write Bibles to all nations, 
but " Go, teach all nations." In Luke x, 16, 
He does not say, He that readeth, or heareth 
the Scripture, heareth me, but " He that heareth 
you, heareth me." In Matth. xviii, 17, He 
does not say, He that will not read the Scrip- 
ture, but " He that will not hear the Church, is 
to be considered as a heathen and publican." 



CHAPTER VI. 

Q. Do Catholics depend on traditional doc- 
trines as well as on those that are Scriptural 
or written ? 

A. Yes ; we believe that what Christ or his 
Apostles spoke, is as true as what they wrote. 
It is clear, from w T hat we have seen above, that 
they delivered many truths by word of mouth, 



358 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

which are not written in the Scripture. These 
truths are considered authentic and divine by 
Catholics, when it is found that they have been 
believed by all Christian nations, and in every 
age of the Church. 

Q. Does the Scripture authorize this de- 
pendence on traditional doctrine ? 

i. In 2 Thess. ii, 15, we have, "Hold the 
traditions you have been taught, whether by 
word, or by our Epistle." In 2 Corinth, iii, 3, 
it is said, " You are the Epistle of Christ, not 
written with ink, but with the Spirit of the 
living God." Here, what is not written is call- 
ed the Epistle of Christ, written with the Spirit 
of the living God upon the heart, which, though 
only tradition, most certainly must be as true 
as the written Word itself. 

Q. Have you any other texts to the same 
effect ? 

A. 2 Thess. iii, 6 — " Withdraw yourselves 
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and 
not after the tradition which ye have received 
of us." See Rom. vi, 17 ; 1 Cor. xi, 2 ; Tim. 
vi, 20 ; Tim. i, 13, where it is said, " Hold fast 
the form of sound words which thou hast heard 
of me." 1 Thess. ii, 13 — " When ye received 
the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye 
received it, not as the w r ord of men, but (as it 
is in truth) the Word of God." 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 359 

Q. How can you distinguish true from false 
tradition ? 

A. As easily as you can distinguish a true 
from a false copy of Scripture. In both cases 
you must depend on the uniform and universal 
testimony of Christian antiquity. You hold 
your Bible to be the Word of God, because all 
Christian ages and nations have done so before 
you ; and you Have the very same testimony 
for the traditional doctrines held as divine by 
the Catholic Church. We have as much evi- 
dence for the truth of universally-admitted tra- 
ditional doctrine, as we have for the truth and 
authenticity and divinity of the four Gospels. 

Q. Does not our Saviour say — " Search the 
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life?" John v, 39. 

A. Yes ; but he does not say, in them ye 
have certainly eternal life. This argument 
would prove, that the Old Testament, without 
the New, was sufficient ; for, at this time, not 
one word of the New Testament was written. 
In 2 Tim. iii, 15, we are told, that all Scripture 
is profitable, and that it maketh wise unto sal- 
vation ; and what Catholic ever denied this ? 
This text does not say that the Scripture alone 
maketh wise as to every thing necessary. The 
book of Genesis makes men wise, but will this 
one book make men wise in every religious 



360 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

truth ? St. Paul praises Timothy, because he 
had read the Scriptures from his youth ; but 
then Timothy was a bishop, whose duty it 
was, not only to read, but to expound the 
Scripture. 

Q. What say you to Deut. iv, 2 — " You 
shall not add to the word which I speak, nor 
take away from it ?" 

A. At this time nothing but the Mosaic law 
was written ; hence, this passage in the mouth 
of a Protestant proves, that he believes the 
Mosaic law sufficient as a rule of faith. But 
what will he say to the Prophets and Apostles, 
who afterwards added all the rest of the Old 
and New Testament ? It is not what is added 
by inspired men that is here condemned, but 
what is contrary to that which God had already 
revealed, for God does not condemn the good 
institutions of men. 2 Chron. xxx, 21, after 
the children of Israel, according to law, had 
kept the solemnity of Azymes seven days, (ver. 
23,) the whole assembly took good counsel to 
keep other seven days, and yet, though this 
was a human addition, (ver. 27,) " their prayer 
came to the holy habitation of heaven." Thus 
also, Christ himself (John x, 22) keeps the feast 
of the dedication, mentioned in 1st Macchabees, 
iv, 56, though this book is not admitted by 
Protestants to be Scripture at all. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 361 

Q. Does not St. John, at the end of Apoca- 
lypse, the last book of Scripture, say — " If any 
man shall add to these things, God shall add 
unto him the plagues written in this book ?" 
(Chap, xxii, 18.) 

A. The Apocalypse, though placed last in 
order, was not last written. St. John wrote 
his Gospel some years after his liberation from 
the Isle of Patmos, where the Apocalypse was 
composed ; hence, as St. John, according to the 
Protestant sense of the words above quoted, 
would himself incur the curse, it is evident that 
he merely threatens with that curse any one 
who should dare to vitiate, by addition or sub- 
straction, the book which he there concludes, 
— that is, the book of the Apocalypse. He 
ends his Gospel by declaring, (John xx, 25,) 
that our Lord did much that was not written ; 
and surely the witnesses of these doings were 
not accursed for relating and believing what 
they had seen, or heard from the lips of Christ, 
although these things were never written. The 
Thessalonians had tradition, (2 Thess. ii, 14 ;) 
Timothy had a form of sound words, (2 Tim. 
i, 13 ;) and were they, or are we, to be visited 
by the plagues, because, in obedience to St. 
Paul, we hold these traditions, in addition to 
what God commanded to be written ? It is 
therefore a mere Protestant gloss, unauthorized 

31 



362 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM, 



by the text itself, and in contradiction to the 
rest of the Scripture, to assert, that we are to 
believe nothing except what is written. 



ON THE TRUE RULE OF FAITH, OR THE IN- 
FALLIBILITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF 
CHRIST. 



CHAPTER I. 
Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by 
Catholics ? 

A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly 
divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching 
body of the Church,— that is, by the Pastors to 
whom Christ said: "Go, teach all nations." 
This teaching body, when taken collectively 
with the chief Pastor at their head, all Catho- 
lics believe to be infallible,— that is, that they 
cannot teach any error against faith or morals. 
Now, if this great fundamental truth be clearly 
laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be 
quite safe in following the teaching of their 
Pastors ;— then the teaching body will be, to 
the taught, an infallible rule of faith. Mark 
well, we do not maintain that the pastors of the 
Church are, of themselves, infallible, but that 
God has made them so for the benefit of his 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 363 

people, and that Christ himself teaches by their 
lips. 

Q. What proof have you to advance for all 
this ? 

A. In Isaiah ii, 3, Christ is represented as 
teaching the Church — "He will teach us his 
ways, and we shall walk in his paths/'* That 
Church must be infallible in its teaching, which 
has Christ as its director, and whose children 
walk in the paths of the Saviour. 

Q. What do we find in Isaiah, liv, 17 ? 

A. That no weapon which is formed against 
the Church of Christ shall prosper ; and that 
every tongue which resisteth her in judgment 
she shall condemn. Surely she must be infal- 
lible, if she triumph over every enemy, and 
have power from God to condemn every tongue 
that opposes her decisions. In Isaiah lx, 12, it 
is said, " that the nation and kingdom that will 
not serve her shall perish." Now, could na- 
tions be compelled to serve the Church, if she 
could lead them astray and teach them error ? 

Q. Do we find any thing of importance to 
our purpose in Ezechiel xliv, 23 ? 

* Our Protestant brethren have only to refer to their own 
Bible, and note the titles of its chapters, to be satisfied, that 
this and the following passages, quoted from the Old Testa- 
ment, have a direct reference to the Church of Christ, whose 
infallibility they foretell in the most explicit terms. 



364 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

A. " They (the priests) shall teach my people 
what is between a holy thing and a thing pol- 
luted, and the difference between clean and 
unclean they shall show them ; and when there 
shall be a controversy, they shall stand in judg- 
ment, and shall judge according to my judg- 
ments/' The judgments of the priests of the 
Most High must then be infallible, since they 
are according to the judgment of God himself. 

Q. What have we in Psalm cxxxii, 13 ? 

A. We have — " Our Lord hath chosen Sion ; 
he hath chosen it for an habitation to himself; 
this is my rest for ever and ever ; here will I 
dwell, because I have chosen it." Now, ac- 
cording to St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, 15, Christ's 
dwelling-place is his Church — " That thou may- 
est know how to converse in the house of God, 
the Church of the living God." It must be 
manifest, then, that the Church of Christ is 
pure and free from error ; for, were she the 
mother and mistress of idolatry, the pure God 
of heaven could never have chosen her for his 
dwelling-place. 

Q. What says Isaiah, liv, 4 ? 

A. " Fear not," says the Almighty, address- 
ing the Church, " for thou shalt not be ashamed, 
neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not 
be put to shame." If, as Protestants pretend, 
the Church became idolatrous, surely she must 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 365 

have been put to shame, and, in this case, the 
words of the Almighty are supposed false, which 
is evident blasphemy. 

Q. Is there not a still more brilliant testi- 
mony to the infallibility of the Christian 
Church in the same Prophet, lx, 15? 

A. Yes ; — " I will make thee an eternal 
excellence." Would the Church be an eternal 
excellence, if after a few centuries' duration, 
she had fallen into the depths of idolatry ? 
And, in verse 18, " Thou shalt call thy walls 
salvation ; our Lord shall be unto thee an ever- 
lasting light ; thy sun shall go down no more, 
and thy moon shall be no more diminished." 
Now, could it be said of an idolatrous Church, 
that her walls were salvation, — that the infalli- 
ble Deity was her everlasting light, — that her 
sun should set no more, nor her moon withdraw 
her light ? According to these texts, either 
the Church is perpetual, pure, and infallible, or 
God is a false prophet. In chap, xlii, 3, she is 
called "a crown of glory, the delight of the 
Almighty ;" and in ver. 12, she is called, "a 
city sought for and not forsaken ;" and could 
she be either the one or the other, if she had, 
as Protestants pretend, fallen into idolatry and 
superstition ? 

Q. What says Ezech. xxxiv, 22 ? 

A. " I will save my flock, and it will be no 
31* 



366 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

more a spoil." Could the flock be saved 
from spoil, if the Church teaching that flock 
were full of error and buried in idolatry, as 
Protestants contend, for upwards of a thousand 
years ? Surely that Church is infallible in 
which God himself saves the flock from spoil. 

Q. Is not this infallibility clearly laid down 
in Isaiah, lxi, 8 ? 

A. Yes, very clearly. " I will direct their 
work in truth/ 3 says the Lord of his Christian 
Pastors, " and I will make an everlasting cov- 
enant with them" for preserving this never- 
failing truth. Surely nothing could more 
explicitly point out the infallibility of the future 
Christian Church. Again, in xxxv, 5, it is 
said, that in the time of Christ's Church, " the 
eyes of the blind shall be opened, and a high- 
way shall be there, and it shall be called the 
way of holiness, .... though fools shall not err 
therein." Now, if the Church were idolatrous 
or superstitious, could she be called a way of 
holiness, a way in which even fools could not 
err? 

Q. Do we not find a very strong text in 
Isaiah, lxix, 20 ? 

A. Yes ; there the Almighty makes a cove- 
nant with his Church, which places her infalli- 
bility beyond all doubt. " There shall come/' 
says he, " a Redeemer to Sion, and to them that 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 367 

shall return from iniquity in Jacob; as for 
me, this is my covenant with them : my spirit 
that is in thee, and my words that I have put 
in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, 
nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of 
the mouth of thy seeds' seed, from henceforth 
and for ever." Surely a Church, with the 
Word of God in her mouth, w r ith the Spirit of 
God as her guide, and having the word of 
heaven, that these shall remain with her for 
ever, must be infallible — can teach no error. 

Q. What say you to the words of Jeremiah, 
xxxii, 39, where God says of his Christian 
Church — " I will give them one heart and one 
way, that they may fear me for ever ; I will 
put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not 
depart from me ?" 

A. Protestants see here how false is their 
assertion, that after three or four hundred years* 
duration, the Church of Christ fell into idolatry. 
That Church is to fear God for ever, and never 
to depart from God. In Ezec. xxxvii, 24, the 
Almighty says — " They shall walk in my judg- 
ments, and observe my statutes and do them. 
1 will make a covenant of peace unto them ; it 
shall be an everlasting covenant with them ; I 
will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for 
evermore." We here ask any reasoning Prot- 
estant, if an idolatrous Church can observe 



368 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

God's statutes ; can He make an everlasting 
peace with such a Church ; or can it be even 
imagined, that He could place his holy sanc- 
tuary in the midst of a mass of idolatry and 
superstition for evermore ? 

CHAPTER II. 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Q. What do you observe on Matth. xviii, 17 
— " If he will not hear the Church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen and a publican ?" 

A. We ask, could a good God, who came to 
teach truth, and to save men by the belief of 
truth, give such a command as this, if the 
Church, which he appointed to teach, were an 
idolatrous Church ? Suppose, for a moment, 
that Church teaching even one error, does not 
Christ, in the above text, command all to be- 
lieve that error under pain of being as heathens 
and publicans, for whom there is no salvation ? 
If this supposition be not blasphemous, I know 
not what is ; and yet such is the language of 
every Protestant. By rejecting the infallibility 
of the teaching body of the Church, they evi- 
dently make the Saviour command his people 
to believe idolatry, as the Church, according to 
them, fell into it, and taught it, soon after 
Christ left the world. 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 369 

Q. Have you any remark to make on the 
next verse — Matth. xviii, 18 — where Christ 
says to the teachers in his Church, " Whatso- 
ever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever you shall loose upon 
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven ?" 

A. If these teachers could err in loosing or 
binding, then Christ has sworn that he will err 
in ratifying ; but the consequence is blasphemy, 
therefore the premises are untenable ; hence 
the teaching Church can teach no error, — 
hence she is infallible. 

Q. Do you here suppose the teachers indi- 
vidually infallible, or that they are free per- 
sonally from all sin and error ? 

A. By no means ; philosophically speaking, 
if all the bishops of the Church, scattered over 
all the nations of the earth, all men of learning 
and probity, who have never seen one another, 
— who have had no means of combining to 
teach any particular doctrine, — and who have 
had no motive for such, do actually teach the 
very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws 
of human evidence or moral certainty, that their 
combined testimony to the existence of any 
doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, how- 
ever, is not what we contend for here ; we 
maintain our teaching body to be infallible, be- 
cause God has made them so ; as in the Old 



370 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

Law he made the Scribes and Pharisees, who 
were the public ministers of his Church, (though 
often, no doubt, personally sinners,) infallible, 
for the safety of those whom they taught. That 
these teachers of the ancient Church were in- 
fallible, is more than evident from Matth. xxiii, 
1 — " Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the 
Scribes and Pharisees ; all therefore whatsoever 
they shall say unto you, observe and do." Were 
they not infallible teachers, even God could not 
thus command us to obey them ; and surely no 
one will make the teachers of the better Chris- 
tian Church inferior to these. 

Q,. Did not the Apostles and first Christians 
act on this teaching as infallible ? 

A. Yes ; in Acts xv, 2, Paul and Barnabas, 
and certain others, went up to Jerusalem to 
have a disputed question of religion authori- 
tatively decided. They had no Scripture to 
guide them : yet, after great disputation, 
they, as the teaching body, determined the 
point, declaring that their decision was the de- 
cision of the Holy Ghost — " It seemeth good to 
the Holy Ghost and to us ;" and this decision 
was obeyed by all, as the infallible decree of 
heaven. 

Q. Is it not manifest, from Gal. ii, 1, that 
the first Christians reposed no confidence in 
any authority but the Church teaching ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 371 

A. It is ; even St. Paul, after teaching and 
preaching fourteen years, goes up to Jerusalem. 
" I went up," says he, " according to revelation, 
and conferred (compared) with them the Gos- 
pel which I preach among the Gentiles." St. 
Paul does not take the Scripture here as his 
only rule ; no, no ; he draws his light from the 
infallible teaching of the Church. 

Q. Does not St. Paul — Ephes. iv, 11 — sup- 
ply us with a very strong argument : " He 
gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and 
other some evangelists, and other some pastors 
and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of 
the body of Christ, until we all meet in the 
unity of faith ?" 

A. This certainly is a strong passage. Here 
the Bible is not employed to perfect the saints, 
— to edify the body of Christ, — but a body of 
living teachers are pointed out, and these must 
be infallible in their doctrine, otherwise they 
would neither perfect nor edify the body of 
Christ. 

Q. What say you on Matth. xvi, 18 — " The 
gates of hell shall not prevai lagainst it," (the 
Church ?) 

A. In this passage, Christ is the architect or 
builder — " On this rock I will build my Church." 
A rock is the foundation ; and Christ declares, 



372 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

that even all the power of hell shall never pre- 
vail against her. Who then will dare to assert, 
that this Church, with such a foundation, such 
an architect, and such a promise, is fallible, — 
that she may fall into idolatry? Either she 
cannot fail, or Christ is only a false and impo- 
tent prophet. 

Q. Is not the infallibility of the Church 
clearly pointed out in Matth. xxviii, 18, 19, 
20, where it is said, " All power is given to me 
in heaven and in earth ; going therefore, teach 
all nations, .... teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you ; 
and behold I am with you all days, even to the 
consummation of the world ?" 

A. Christ here sends his Pastors to teach all 
nations, and to teach them until the end of the 
world : He knew well that his Apostles could 
not do this of themselves ; for twelve mortal 
men could not teach everywhere and always 
until the consummation of the world. When, 
therefore, Christ sent these first teachers, he 
sent with them all their chosen assistants and 
successors ; for surely Christ did not come 
merely to secure safe teachers to those who 
lived in the time of the Apostles! Now, he 
says he has all power ; therefore he can make 
his teachers infallible : He, the God of truth, 
sends them to teach all nations ; and surely he 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 373 

does not send them to teach error ! He will 
be with them, he says, all days, and, beyond all 
doubt, he will be with them, to preserve them 
at all times from teaching even the smallest 
error, for he could not be with an idolatrous 
Church. Hence, as Christ himself is the guide 
of the Church, and this in every age, she can 
obviously teach no error ; hence she is infal- 
lible. 

Q. What says St. Paul— I Tim. iii, 15 ? 

A. He calls the visible Church, in which 
Timothv is a teacher, "the Church of the 
living God, the pillar and ground of truth/' 
What man will dare attempt to give these clear 
words even two probable explanations ? She 
is, says an Apostle, the Church of the living 
God, therefore she can teach no error. She is 
the pillar and ground of truth ; could she be 
so, if she taught idolatry or superstition ? 

Q. We admit, you may say, that the Church 
was infallible until the Scripture was written, 
but after that period the Scripture became the 
infallible rule. 

A. Christ does not tell you that his Church 
will be infallible only for a time, — he declares 
she will be so until the end of time ; nor does 
St. Paul say, that the Church will ever cease to 
be the pillar and ground of truth. The Scrip- 
tures are, beyond doubt, an infallible rule to 

32 



374 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the extent of the revealed truth contained in 
them, but they are infallible only in themselves, 
and not with regard to us, unless we are pre- 
pared to say, that the meaning we give them is 
infallibly correct, and that this cannot be, we 
have only to consider how Protestants contra- 
dict one another in interpreting Scripture. 
The Bible, then, cannot be an infallible rule, 
unless your understanding of it be infallibly 
right ; but of this you can never be certain, 
unless you have it interpreted for you by an 
infallible judge, and this, as you must see, sup- 
poses the existence of an infallible Church ? 

Q. In Luke x, 16, what do we find? 

A. *' He that heareth you, heareth me, and 
he that despiseth you, despiseth me." He who 
heareth the teaching of Christ, heareth infalli- 
ble teaching ; but Christ, who cannot deceive, 
declares, that he who heareth his pastors, hear- 
eth himself ; therefore their doctrine, being that 
of Christ, is infallible. 

Q. Does not the Apostle — Gal. i, 8 — assume, 
that the teaching of the pastors is infallibly 
correct ? 

A. Certainly ; for he declares, that even an 
angel from heaven is not to be believed, if he 
teach a doctrine contrary to that preached by 
the pastors of the Church. 

Q. Have we not a most conclusive passage 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 375 

in John xiv, 16, 17, and xvi, 1$ — "And I will 
ask the Father, and he will give you another 
Paraclete, that he may abide with you for 
ever, the Spirit of truth. .. .You shall know 
him, because he shall abide with you and in 
you ; but when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, 
he will teach you all truth ?" 

A. Here the teaching body of the Church 
are to be directed by the Spirit of truth, who 
is to teach them all truth, and for ever. They 
must then be infallible guides. 

Q. Does not Christ call his Apostles the 
light of the world ? 

A. Yes ; and upon these words we argue in 
the following manner. The light, sent by 
Christ to enlighten the world, could not lead 
into darkness or error ; but the Apostles and 
their lawful successors were such light ; there- 
fore they could not lead mankind astray. 

Q. We admit, say some of our reformed 
brethren, that the Apostles were infallible, but 
we cannot make the same admission as to the 
pastors who succeeded them. 

A. You must, we reply, either admit the lat- 
ter, or you must make Christ a respecter of 
persons, who gave to the first Christians infal- 
lible teachers in the Apostles, and left all the 
rest of mankind to the direction of erring 
men. Christ surely makes us as secure as 






376 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the first Christians : he loves us, as he loved 
them. 

Q. Can you strengthen your cause by a ref- 
erence to Ephes. chap, v ? 

A. Yes. The Church is described there as 
the spouse of Christ ; Christ has sanctified her, 
and loved her, and presented her to himself, 
without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, and 
made her holy and without blemish. Now, 
this Church must be free from error, otherwise 
Christ could not sanctify her, nor could he love 
her, if she was idolatrous : her holiness, with- 
out spot or blemish, is a certain pledge of her 
infallibility. "Obey your prelates," says St. 
Paul, " for they watch, as being to render an 
account for your souls." Now, how could the 
Almighty, by his Apostle, order us to hear and 
obey men, unless he knew that these men could 
teach us no error ? " Take heed to your- 
selves," says the same Apostle to the pastors of 
the Church, " and to your whole flocks, wherein 
the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to rule 
the Church of God." Could the Holy Ghost 
subject his people in this world to the rule and 
direction of men, who might — and, according 
to Protestants, did — teach error, idolatry, and 
superstition ? 

Q. Must not the rule of faith, given by the 
Almighty to mankind, have been an easy rule ? 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 377 

A. Yes ; because it was intended for the ig- 
norant as well as the learned. Wherever the 
Christian Church existed, there were Christian 
pastors — for we cannot suppose a flock without 
shepherds ; hence, the teaching of these living 
guides was always within reach of their people. 
This mode of acquiring instruction is a " path 
in which even fools cannot err ;" not so the 
Bible, about the interpretation of which even 
the most learned dispute and differ, and which, 
until the invention of printing, fourteen hundred 
years after Christ, could not be within the 
reach of the people at all ; and to those who 
were unable to read, could be no rule at all. 

Q. Was the Jewish as well as the Christian 
Church infallible ? 

A. As long as it was the decree of heaven 
that the Jewish Church should exist, she was, 
by the teaching of her pastors, infallible as a 
guide to her people. During the first two 
thousand four hundred years of the world, there 
was no Scripture ; God's people — Seth, Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Israel, Job, Melchizedeck — were 
saved by the teaching, which must have been 
infallible, of the patriarchs. In Deut. xxxi, the 
Levites are ordered to read and expound the 
Scripture to the people ; but the Scripture is 
not put into the hands of the people. In the 
same Book, chap, xvii, all are commanded, 

32* 



378 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

under pain of death, to have recourse to the 
pastors of the Church in every controversy. 
In 2 Paralip. (2 Chron. xix) — " Amarias, your 
high priest, shall be chief in the things which 
regard God." In Malac. ii, 7, the people are 
commanded to seek the law from the lips of 
the priesthood. Now, surely these commands, 
to obey the pastors or teachers in the Jewish 
Church, evidently suppose that body to be 
infallible, for a good God could not command 
his people, under pain of death, to obey men 
who might lead them into error. 

Q. Was the Church of Christ to be so uni- 
versal, that all its children might be icithin 
reach of its teaching ? 

A. St. John, Apoc. vii, 9, besides twelve 
thousand of every tribe of Israel, saw a great 
multitude, which no man could number, of all 
nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. Ps. ii, 8 
— " Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles 
for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth 
for thy possession." Ps. xxii, 27 — "All the 
ends of the earth shall remember and be con- 
verted to the Lord." Ps. lxxii, 7—" He shall 
rule from sea to sea, ....yea, all the kings of 
the earth shall adore him, and all nations shall 
serve him." And in the New Testament, the 
Church is represented as a city on the top of a 
mountain, — as a light which cannot be hid, — • 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 379 

whilst Christ commissions his Apostles to teach 
all nations. The teaching of the Church, then, 
is within reach of all, as the Church is visible 
to all ; but no one in his senses will say the 
same of the Bible, whose existence, in the hands 
of the people, was an impossibility during most 
of the time that has elapsed since the establish- 
ment of Christianity. 



CHAPTER III. 

Q. May not some reasoning Protestant here 
say : You have given a very plausible inter- 
pretation of these passages of Scripture in 
favor of the infallibility of the Church of 
Christ ; but how are we to know that yours is 
the true interpretation, — that these texts mean 
exactly what you say ? 

A. Here we have a sensible person to reason 
with, and we request him to beg the Almighty 
to enlighten his mind ; we beg him to solicit 
this grace through the all-powerful mediation 
of the incarnate and crucified God ; we beseech 
him also to recollect, that there is a thick mist 
of long-fostered prejudice to be removed, — 
that the effects of early education are to be 
overcome, — pride and self-love to be curbed 
and repressed. Let him give these texts an 



380 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

attentive reconsideration, and then weigh im- 
partially the following reflections. 

1st, The following rule of criticism has been 
universally received — " Every explanation must 
be clearer than the thing explained." The 
texts, then, in question, by the chapter titles of 
the Protestant Bible, evidently refer to the 
Christian Church ; on this head, therefore, there 
can be no dispute. These texts say, that, in 
the Christian Church, the Lord will teach us 
his ways, — that our path shall be so plain that 
even fools cannot err in it, — that God will 
never be wroth with his Church, — that she 
shall be founded in justice, — that her children 
shall be taught of the Lord, &c, &c. Now, 
what interpretation can be so clear as that 
which I gave these texts, — that the Church of 
which they were spoken must be free from 
error ; and what inference could be more forced 
and unnatural than this, which Protestants 
draw, — that a Church, with these splendid and 
glorious attributes, — a Church which has God 
as her teacher, his Spirit her guide, and his 
Word ever in her mouth, should be liable to 
teach error, or fall into idolatry ? 

The inference which I drew from the New 
Testament evidences is still more natural. 1 
will build my Church upon a rock, — the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it, — I will be 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 381 

with her all days, even to the consummation of 
the world, — she is the pillar and ground of 
truth, — my Holy Spirit will teach her all truth 
for ever. Is not the interpretation of these 
passages, in favor of infallibility, easy, natural, 
and obvious ; and would not any interpretation 
of them, in favor of fallibility, be forced, con- 
jectural, and whimsical, and much less clear than 
the texts themselves ? 

2dly, Our next reason for the admission of 
the Catholic interpretation is this : — We have, 
for this interpretation, the unanimous testimony 
and collective judgment of all ages, of all na- 
tions, of all Christian people ; and surely this 
ought to be preferred to the private interpreta- 
tion of one fallible man ; for this, in fact, is the 
Protestant rule — each Protestant is bound to 
follow the interpretation he himself thinks best. 
If there is wisdom among many counsellors, 
and if Christ is in the midst of even two or 
three gathered together in his name, surely any 
interpretation, universally believed by the Cath- 
olic Church spread over all nations, and exist- 
ing in all ages, is preferable to the interpreta- 
tion of any one individual, how learned soever 
he may be ! 

3dly, Our interpretation should be admitted, 
if I can prove that the Protestant mode of in- 
terpretation ought to be rejected; truth lies 



382 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

between us ; the one must be right, the other 
wrong. Now, that mode of interpretation is 
bad in theory, which its advocates are obliged 
to abandon in practice. But such is the Prot- 
estant mode ; it supports the right of private 
judgment as the great palladium of Gospel liber- 
ty. When, therefore, Protestant Churches inter- 
fere with, or restrain this liberty, they abandon 
their system in practice. But the Church of 
England excommunicates — the Church of Scot- 
land excommunicates — for doctrinal errors ; is 
this reconcileable with the right of private 
judgment ? This right, they say, is from Christ ; 
those who use it are responsible only to Christ ; 
and if so, no Protestant Church has a right to 
judge of its use, or its abuse, for that is the very 
power they deny to the infallible Church. Prot- 
estants authorize each man to interpret, and 
then excommunicate and depose him for doing 
what they authorize ; hence, their principle is 
bad ; they hold in theory what they are obliged 
to abandon in practice. What, indeed, are 
their signatures to the thirty-nine articles, and 
the Athanasian Creed, — their denunciations of 
Dissenters and Unitarians, — their suspensions 
of Pusey and others, — but a practical abandon- 
ment of the empty boast of Protestantism — the 
right of private judgment ? 

4thly, That mode of interpretation must be 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 383 

the correct one, which is sanctioned by the 
example of the Apostles, and practised by the 
primitive Church. But both these appealed, 
not to private judgment, but to the judgment 
of the teaching Church, for the truth of their 
doctrines. When certain teachers at Antioch 
disputed with Paul and Barnabas concerning 
the necessity of circumcision, did they appeal 
each to his private judgment, or to the Scrip- 
ture privately interpreted ? No ; they sent a 
deputation with Paul and Barnabas to consult 
the pastors of the Church at Jerusalem. The 
Judeans and Antiochians, led by private judg- 
ment, believed circumcision necessary ; Paul 
and Barnabas thought otherwise. They appeal, 
not to the Bible, but to the teaching body of 
the Church, and, under the direction of the 
Holy Ghost, the point is decided by this body. 
Now, if the Scripture alone were the only 
rule, the Antiochians were guilty of a heinous 
sin in abandoning that rule, and the Apostles 
were equally criminal in deciding by any other. 
5thly, That mode of interpretation is true 
which was adopted during the first five cen- 
turies ; during which period even Protestants 
admit that the Church was pure and free from 
every error. Now, when Arius denied the 
Divinity of Christ, there was no appeal to pri- 
vate judgment ; a general Council was called in 



384 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

the year 325, and thus was condemned, by the 
body of living teachers, the impious doctrine of 
Arius, — a doctrine which may be styled the 
first monster produced by the principle of pri- 
vate interpretation. 

6thly, Such as the above was the principle 
adopted by all the Fathers of the first five cen- 
turies. St. Irenaeus, (Adv. Haeres. L. iv, c. 45,) 
who lived in the Second Century, says : " God 
appointed in his Church Apostles, prophets, and 
doctors ; where, therefore, are the holy gifts of 
God, there must the truth be learned!' And 
again — Cap. lii, p. 355 — " To this man all things 
will be plain, if he read diligently the Scriptures, 
with the aid of those who are the priests in the 
Church, and in whose hands rests the doctrine 
of the Apostles." Origen, of the Third Century, 
says, (Prsef. Lib. i, Periarchon,) — " Many think 
they believe what Christ taught, and some of 
these differ from others ; .... all should profess 
that doctrine which came down from the Apos- 
tles and now continues in the Church ; that alone 
is truth which in nothing differs from what is 
thus delivered" St. Hilary, in the Fourth 
Century, says, the ship from which Christ 
preached " is an emblem of the Church, within 
which is the word of life placed and preached" 
"I would not/' says St. Augustine (Contra 
Epist. Fund.) in the Fifth Century, " I would 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 385 

not give credit to the Gospel, unless the au- 
thority of the Church induced me to it ; for," 
says he, Contra Faust., " the authority of our 
sacred books is confirmed by the consent of 
nations, through the succession of Apostles, 
bishops, and councils.'' 

CHAPTER IV. 

Q. Can you confirm all these arguments in 
favor of infallibility, by an appeal to reason, 
which is the handmaid of Scripture ? 

A. Yes ; reason tells us, that a fallible Church 
is unworthy of a good and merciful God. What 
security can man have from a Church which 
may teach error ; his salvation depends upon 
his faith and morals ; and how can he be cer- 
tain what he should believe or practise, if he 
have no teacher but a fallible Church ? Hence, 
either the Church of Christ must be infallible, 
or there should be no Church at all ; for no 
man can ever be certain that what a fallible 
Church teaches is true ; — he can never, with- 
out doubting, believe her doctrines ; — he can 
have not even moral certainty of salvation ; for 
though he may believe every thing she teaches, 
and practise all that she commands, he must 
still remain in doubt as to the truth of his be- 
lief. To have true faith, you must have a 

33 



386 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 



teacher that cannot err ; this you cannot have, 
unless the Church be infallible. It is vain for 
you to reply, that the Scripture is an infallible 
teacher ; we admit it an infallible teacher, if 
your interpretation of it be infallibly right ; but, 
until you are satisfied that you have it explain- 
ed by an infallible interpreter, you must still 
be in doubt regarding its true meaning; and 
hence, though in itself the Bible be infallible, 
with regard to you it is still a fallible rule. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE CHURCH CALLED CATHOLIC IS THE TRUE INFAL- 
LIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 

We have already proved, by the most con- 
vincing arguments, that the Church of Christ, 
whatever and wherever she be, is infallible ; we 
have yet to point out what and where that 
Church is ; we new deliberately assert, that 
this infallible Church of Christ, is that great, 
ever-enduring, and everywhere-existing Church, 
which is called Catholic. 

Q. How do you prove this assertion ? 

A. Were we destitute of every other argu- 
ment, the following would be sufficient. That 
Church, and that Church only, can be the true 
Church of Christ, which openly avows and be- 
lieves its own infallibility; for, having once 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 387 

admitted that Christ's Church is infallible, any 
Church teaching its own fallibility, teaches that 
it cannot be the Church of Christ ; because, 
even though such Church were actually in it- 
self infallible, by teaching its fallibility, it teaches 
an error in dogma, and, by this very fact, be- 
comes fallible. But the Catholic Church is the 
only Church upon earth, which avows, be- 
lieves, and teaches its own infallibility ; there- 
fore, the Catholic Church is, beyond all doubt, 
the true, infallible Church of Christ ; and the 
Protestant Church, by proclaiming her own 
fallibility, and liability to err, proves to a de- 
monstration, that she has no right to the august 
title of Christ's Church. 

Q. What other proofs have you to advance 
on this subject ? 

A. The Scriptural marks of the Church of 
Christ are to be found only in the Catholic 
Church ; hence, the latter is evidently the 
Church of Christ. These marks are Unity, 
Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity* The 
true Church of Christ is, according to Scrip- 
ture, One. There is one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism, one fold, of which there can be only 

* As an apology to the reader for the brevity with which 
we will state the following argument, we request him to re- 
member, that we have treated these subjects more fully at 
page 50, in the early part of this work. 



388 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

one shepherd. She is Holy: The spouse of 
Christ, — a purchased people, — holy and without 
blemish. She is Catholic or universal: The 
prophet declares, that she will have the nations 
for her inheritance, and the ends of the earth 
for her possession ; and Christ tells his Apos- 
tles to preach the Gospel to all nations. She 
is Apostolical : Christ was to be with her all 
days, — she was to exist always, from the time 
of the Apostles to the end of the world, that all 
her doctrines might be traced easily back through 
every age to the Apostolic times. 

The Protestant Church is not One. Prot- 
estants admit and Protestants deny the Trinity ; 
some of them admit and some of them deny 
the Divinity of Christ ; some admit and some 
deny the necessity of baptism, the real presence, 
the existence of free-will, the necessity of good 
works, the propriety of having bishops as rulers ; 
in short, there is scarcely one point in which 
they are agreed ; — upwards of two hundred 
jarring sects of Protestants made their appear- 
ance during the first century of their existence. 
The Protestant Church, then, is not One. 

Nor can it be said that she is Holy. She 
has taught that God is the author of sin, — that 
man must sin, — that good works are hurtful to 
salvation. Her founders and leading teachers 
— Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox — were all 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 389 

stained by immorality ; — Melanchthon says, the 
whole Elbe would not supply tears enough to 
weep over their crimes ; and Luther adds : 
" Our people are more disorderly, vicious, and 
cruel now than when they were Papists." The 
Protestant Church, therefore, is not Holy. 

Nor is it true that she is Catholic. St. Pa- 
cian says, that by the name Catholic, the true 
Church is distinguished from all heresies. The 
Protestant Church has never, though she has 
often attempted it, been able to filch that glori- 
ous name from us, or to get herself made known 
and recognised by that title. If you ask any- 
where, even in Protestant countries, for the 
Catholic Church, no one will point to a Prot- 
estant Church. Fifteen hundred years of Chris- 
tianity had elapsed after the death of Christ 
before she made her appearance, before even 
her very name was known ; therefore she is 
not Catholic or universal as to time. She 
never was so diffused throughout the world as 
that she deserved to be styled the Church of all 
nations. She is only known in a few coun- 
tries ; — Protestants are only 48,000,000, Catho- 
lics are 256,000,000; — she is not exclusively 
the Church of any one nation, nay, of any one 
parish under heaven ; therefore, she is not uni- 
versal as to place. She is not Catholic as to 
the truth of her doctrine — it is different in al- 

33* 



390 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

most every different country ; it has been chop- 
ped and changed almost every year : — scarcely 
will you find two Protestants, who, on every 
point, believe the same principles. It is evi- 
dent, therefore, that the Protestant Church is 
not Catholic. 

To be Apostolical, she should have a per- 
petual succession of society, doctrine, orders, 
and mission from the Apostles. Now she made 
her first appearance in the world only in the 
year 1517; — her society existed nowhere be- 
fore that time ; — her peculiar doctrines could 
not exist, for there were none to profess them. 
As she had no existence, she had no pastors ; 
hence, she could have neither orders nor mis- 
sion. Indeed, her pastors cannot have orders 
even at present. There are only two ways of 
receiving orders and mission, either directly 
from heaven, or from the lawfully sent and 
ordained pastors of God's Church upon earth ; 
but Protestant ministers have not received them 
in either of these ways. They came fifteen 
hundred years too late to have any connection 
with Christ or his Apostles ; and they have 
never been able to prove that they received 
either orders or mission from the Catholic 
Church — the only Church in existence when 
they made their first appearance. The Prot- 
estant Church, therefore, has not the Scriptural 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 391 

marks of truth, Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, 
and Apostolicity ; hence, beyond all doubt, she 
cannot be that infallible Church of Christ, 
which we have, by such a flood of overwhelm- 
ing evidence, proved to exist. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ALL THE SCRIPTURAL 

MARKS OF TRUTH. 

r 

She is One in her faith. The Apostles' Creed, 
the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and 
the Creed of Pope Pius, are everywhere taught 
and believed ; — the same articles of faith, the 
same principles of morality, everywhere found in 
her catechisms ; — the same rule of faith every- 
where followed ; — the same sacrifice of the Mass 
everywhere offered ; — the same seven sacra- 
ments everywhere administered; — the same 
great festivals of redemption, and the same 
Apostolical fast of Lent, everywhere observed. 
Such, in short, is her unity in these respects, 
that the Catholic priest is at home on every 
altar in the world ; and the Catholic laity, 
whether they wander to the west or to the east, 
to the north or to the south, can join with ease 
and fruit in every part of Divine worship, be- 
cause it is everywhere essentially the same. 
She is One in her government too : Her chil- 



392 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

dren spread over all nations, differing from each 
other in every thing else, in the order of religion 
are one, united, beautiful body, like an army in 
battle array ; each simple Catholic is subject to 
his parish priest, each priest to his bishop, and 
each bishop acknowledges the spiritual su- 
premacy of Peter's lawful successor, to whom 
Christ said, " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." 
The Catholic Church is therefore One. 

She is Holy. She teaches her children to 
believe all that God has revealed in the Old and 
New Testaments ; to look to Jesus alone for 
mercy, grace, and salvation ; to practise the 
virtues recommended in the Gospel ; to receive 
the sacraments there instituted : in short, to 
believe firmly, to hope with confidence, to love 
with fervor God and every fellow-creature. 
Her pure doctrines, and heavenly means, and 
pious exertions, have been crowned in every 
age with myriads of saints, whose lives have 
been so incontestably holy, that even enemies 
have been compelled to admit their eminent 
sanctity, and reverence their memory. The 
Catholic Church, then, is evidently Holy. 

She is Universal too. The name Catholic 
has been ever hers in spite of every enemy. 
By this title is she known now everywhere, as 
she was in the days of Pacian or Tertullian. 
She bears not the name of any man or any 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 393 

country, because she is the Church of every 
man and every country. Her doctrine has 
been taught in every nation ; — Jerome, Au- 
gustine, Leo, and Gregory, taught what we 
teach. It has been attacked in vain by the 
ablest heretics and infidels ; other doctrines 
have arisen and died in rapid succession ; 
every thing has been changed, even nations 
have lost their very names ; her doctrine has 
remained the same amid the general wreck, 
because the truth of the Lord remaineth for 
ever. That she has been universal as to time 
— that is, that she has existed ever since Christ, 
without any interruption — even Protestants 
willingly admit ; and there is scarcely a nation 
under heaven that does not attest her uni- 
versality as to place ; everywhere her altars 
rise, everywhere her sacrifice is offered, every- 
where her pastors disseminate the pure Word 
of God. She converted the world from Pagan- 
ism ; — the names of her Apostles are embalmed 
in the recollections of the nations she convert- 
ed. Ask for the patron saint of every nation 
in succession, and vou will find, that he who 
carried Christianity thither was a Catholic priest 
or a Catholic bishop. Where is the nation that is 
not under the protection of some Catholic saint ? 
Where is the great city that is not adorned with 
some Catholic cathedral, university, or monas- 



394 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 

tic institution — magnificent even in its ruins ? 
Where is the island that is not hallowed by the 
name of some Catholic recluse ? Where is 
even the graveyard, whose monuments do not 
speak our antiquity and universality by the 
names, the emblems, the doctrines, that adorn 
the moss-clad stone ? 

In fine, the Catholic Church is Apostolical. 
Her society we can trace, as a religious body, 
with congregations, pastors, liturgy, back through 
every age, until we arrive at that first blessed 
society, which was formed as the school of 
Christ and his Apostles ;— -her doctrines can be 
traced to no source but the Apostolic times ; — 
her orders and mission can be traced back 
through an unbroken succession of bishops and 
Popes to the time of Christ, who ordained and 
commissioned the first pastors of his Church. 
She is therefore Apostolical, in every sense of 
the word. 



We can come then, dear reader, to only one 
conclusion on this all-important subject, which 
we think fully warranted by what we have seen. 
That conclusion is this : — the true Church of 
Christ, which is infallible, ought, according to 
Scripture, to be One, Holy, Catholic, and 
Apostolical. But the Protestant Church is 



A DOCTRINAL CATECHI3M. 395 

neither one, nor holy, nor Catholic, nor Apos- 
tolical ; therefore, she is not, she cannot be, the 
true, infallible Church of Christ. On the con- 
trary, the Church called Catholic is strictly One 
in her faith, her government, her liturgy ; Holy 
in her head, her doctrines, and her saints ; 
Catholic as to time, place, and doctrine ; Apos- 
tolical as to her society, doctrine, orders, and 
mission. Therefore, either she is the true, in- 
fallible Church of Christ, or God is a deceiver, 
the Scripture is not his Word, reason is a fancy, 
and religion a solemn mockery. 



THE END. 



u 



DOCTRINAL CATECHISM; 

WHEREIN DIVERS POINTS OP 

CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE ASSAILED 
BY MODERN HERETICS 

iRE SUSTAINED BY AN APPEAL TO THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT 
FATHERS, AND THE DICTATES OF REASON. 

ON THE BASIS OF SCHEFFMACHER'S CATECHISM. 



BY THE 



/ 



REY. STEPHEN KEENAN. 

FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED. 

Try all things, and hold fast that which is good."— Thess. v. 21. 



APPROVED BY THE 

RIGHT REV. JOHN HUGHES, D. D 

BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 




NEW YORK: 
EDWARD DUNIGAN & BROTHER, 

151 FULTON-STREET. 

1S48. 



©HHOO-AIP 



Published the First of Every XVXonth. 

THE CHEAPEST & HANI 5ST ECC 

YET OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC. 

A Series of small Books of Moral Tales, original 
and translated, by the most approved writers. Ele- 
gantly and profusely Illustrated, from original Designs 
by our most distinguished artist, 

J. G. CHAPMAN. 

The " Library" will be emphatically a series of 
; ' Little Books for Little People,'' and also for children 
of a larger growth ; with every attraction to please 
ihe eye and heart : presenting to the minds of youth 
practical examples of goodness and virtue. These 
volumes are published at prices SO CHEAP as to 
place them within the reach of all. 

The Series will commence with the charming 
Tales of 

CANON SC HM ID- 
As a writer for the young, the venerable Canon is 
without an equal, or even a rival, all over Europe. 
Among jhe young, his name is a household word. 
His delightful little stories are the joy of every fire- 
side in Germany, France, Belgium, and Switzerland. 
Nothing can be more suitable for 

FAWiL!E3 ? SCHOOLS. PREMIUMS, 
GIFT-BOCKS5 ETC. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 



